We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants



Forgotten password?


Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 31 (2016), No. 6     22. Nov. 2016
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 31 (2016), No. 6  (22.11.2016)

Page 1264-1272, doi:10.11607/jomi.5321, PubMed:27861650

Influence of Four Different Abutment Materials and the Adhesive Joint of Two-Piece Abutments on Cervical Implant Bone and Soft Tissue
Mehl, Christian / Gaßling, Volker / Schultz-Langerhans, Stephan / Açil, Yahya / Bähr, Telse / Wiltfang, Jörg / Kern, Matthias
Purpose: The main aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of four different abutment materials and the adhesive joint of two-piece abutments on the cervical implant bone and soft tissue.
Materials and Methods: Sixty-four titanium implants (Camlog Conelog; 4.3 × 9 mm) were placed bone level into the edentulous arches of four minipigs. Four different types of abutments were placed at implant exposure: zirconium dioxide, lithium disilicate, and titanium bonded to a titanium luting base with resin cement; one-piece titanium abutments served as the control. The animals were sacrificed 6 months after implant exposure, and the bone-to-implant contact (BIC) area, sulcus depth, the length of the junctional epithelium and the connective tissue, the biologic width, and first cervical BIC-implant shoulder distance were measured using histomorphometry and light and fluorescence microscopy.
Results: Overall, 14 implants were lost (22%). At exposure, the implant shoulder-bone distance was 0.6 ± 0.7 mm. Six months later, the bone loss was 2.1 ± 1.2 mm measured histomorphometrically. There was a significant difference between the two measurements (P ≤ .0001). No significant influence could be found between any of the abutment materials with regard to bone loss or soft tissue anatomy (P > .05), with the exception of zirconium dioxide and onepiece titanium abutments when measuring the length of the junctional epithelium (P ≤ .01). The maxilla provided significantly more soft tissue and less bone loss compared with the mandible (P ≤ .02).
Conclusion: All tested abutment materials and techniques seem to be comparable with regard to soft tissue properties and the cervical bone level.

Keywords: animal study, bone, cell adhesion, cytology, dental implants, minipigs, osseointegration, osteoblasts, osteogenesis, soft tissue