The Effect of One-Abutment at One-Time on Marginal Bone Loss Around Implants Placed in Healed Bone

Perrotti, Vittoria; Zhang, Dongke; Liang, Andrew Ming; Wong, Jonathan; Quaranta, A. Alberigi

doi:10.1097/id.0000000000000931

Cited by 15 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, in this study the healing abutments were removed within a limited number of times (3 times) in order to limit the damage of soft tissues. In addition, recent studies have shown that clinically this can have an extremely limited effect and other factors may have a greater influence [42,43]. Moreover, during the healing period the test HAs used in this study have not been removed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Immunohistochemical Results of Soft Tissues around a New Implant Healing-Abutment Surface: A Human Study

Ghinassi

D’Addazio

Baldassarre

et al. 2020

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although, the high success rate of implant rehabilitation treatment, the biological complications such as bone loss and peri-implantitis are still present. The creation of a coronal biological seal between the implant and the oral tissues seems to be a crucial point on preserving dental implants. The objective of this study was to immunohistochemically analyze the behavior of peri-implant soft tissues around a new implant healing-abutment surface on humans. A total of 30 soft tissue biopsies were collected after a healing period of 30 (±7) days, to analyze the expression of inflammatory (cluster of differentiation 63 (CD63), human neutrophil peptides 1–3 (HPN1–3)) and junctional (E-cadherin, occludin, and β-catenin) markers, on soft tissues around laser treated and machined alternated healing abutments. The evaluation demonstrated the whole area of the soft tissues adherent to the laser treated surface with a regular morphology. While several stress hallmarks in correspondence of machined surfaces were shown such as: (a) An irregular, disrupted, and discontinued basal membrane with an increased inflammation evident both the epithelial and connective tissues; (b) the absence or defective proper keratinization process of the external layer, and (c) damages in the cell to cell interaction. In conclusion, the laser treated surface is preferable to maintain the integrity and functionality of the gingiva epithelium.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Immunohistochemical Results of Soft Tissues around a New Implant Healing-Abutment Surface: A Human Study

Ghinassi

D’Addazio

Baldassarre

et al. 2020

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, MUAs allow placement of the definitive abutment at the time of implant placement which may further decrease marginal bone loss. 17 The creation of stable soft tissue around the transmucosal portion of the implant is critical to the long-term implant health. This biologic seal preserves crestal bone levels, supports peri-implant soft tissues, and provides a soft tissue seal against microorganisms.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Repeated removal and replacement of the abutment disrupts the soft tissue attachment and leads to additional marginal bone loss. 17,19,20 A multi-unit abutment best accomplishes these goals.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Immediate Teeth in Fibulas: Expanded Clinical Applications and Surgical Technique

Williams

Hammer

Wentland

et al. 2021

Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

show abstract

“…The main objective of this multicenter cohort study was to investigate the association of the one‐abutment one‐time concept with MBL around bone‐level implants in relation to other factors. The high number of systematic reviews that have been published on the topic may reflect the interest on maximal bone preservation by the scientific community (Atieh et al., 2017; Perrotti et al., 2019; Santos et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2017). Systematic reviews on therapeutic aspects are usually based on RCTs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A multicenter cohort study on the association of the one‐abutment one‐time concept with marginal bone loss around bone level implants

Lambrechts

Doornewaard

Bruyckere

et al. 2020

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To investigate the association of the one‐abutment one‐time concept with marginal bone loss (MBL) around bone‐level implants in relation to other factors. Materials and methods Records from patients treated by four experienced implant surgeons between January 2016 and July 2019 were scrutinized. Subjects treated with two bone‐level implant types with varying machined collar (subgroups: 0.5 and 0.8 mm) were considered, receiving a healing abutment (HA cohort) or a permanent abutment at the time of surgery (OT cohort). The primary outcome was MBL registered at 3 months and the longest follow‐up. A clustered two‐part regression model for semicontinuous data was used. Results Data pertaining to 160 patients (92 females, mean age 54) and 344 implants (125 in HA cohort, 219 in OT cohort) were available for evaluation. Mean MBL amounted to 0.52 mm (SD 0.68) after a mean follow‐up of 20 (SD 9.2) months, with 33.8% of the implants showing complete bone preservation and 5.0% demonstrating >2mm MBL. OT was not related to the presence of MBL using MBL as dependent binary variable (0: no MBL; 1: MBL irrespective of its magnitude). However, OT significantly reduced the magnitude of MBL with 0.300mm when compared to HA (p = .023) in the cases where MBL was detected. Subgroup (p = .212), smoking (p = .789), history of periodontitis (p = .839), type of edentulism (p = .054), implant surgeon (p = .079), patient compliance (p = .617), and follow‐up (p = .443) failed to show a significant association with MBL in the regression model. Ninety‐eight % of the implants survived. Conclusion Within the limitations of a cohort study, the one‐abutment one‐time concept was associated with a decrease in MBL at implant sites with bone loss. Therefore, the placement of a permanent abutment at the time of surgery seems relevant to limit marginal bone‐level alterations.

show abstract

The Effect of One-Abutment at One-Time on Marginal Bone Loss Around Implants Placed in Healed Bone

Cited by 15 publications

References 33 publications

Immunohistochemical Results of Soft Tissues around a New Implant Healing-Abutment Surface: A Human Study

Immunohistochemical Results of Soft Tissues around a New Implant Healing-Abutment Surface: A Human Study

Immediate Teeth in Fibulas: Expanded Clinical Applications and Surgical Technique

A multicenter cohort study on the association of the one‐abutment one‐time concept with marginal bone loss around bone level implants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About