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 30 (2015), No. 3     19. May 2015
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 30 (2015), No. 3  (19.05.2015)

Page 622-632, doi:10.11607/jomi.3772, PubMed:26009913

A Multicenter Randomized Comparative Trial of Implants with Different Abutment Interfaces to Replace Anterior Maxillary Single Teeth
Cooper, Lyndon F. / Reside, Glenn / Stanford, Clark / Barwacz, Chris / Feine, Jocelyne / Nader, Samer Abi / Scheyer, E. Todd / McGuire, Michael
Purpose: The implant-abutment interface may affect peri-implant mucosal architecture, and influence health and esthetics. The goal of this 1-year follow-up report of a 5-year clinical investigation was to examine the periimplant mucosal tissue responses to different implant-abutment interface designs.
Materials and Methods: Subjects requiring an anterior maxillary implant were recruited. Tooth extractions, with or without preservation or ridge augmentation procedures, were performed as required. After 5 months of healing, one of three different implant-abutment combinations (conical interface [CI] n = 48); flat-to-flat interface [FI] n = 49); or platform switch interface [PS] n = 44) was placed and provisionalized. Twelve weeks later, permanent crowns were placed and data gathered throughout the first year. Peri-implant mucosal architecture and bone levels were evaluated clinically, photographically, and radiographically.
Results: At 1 year, seven FI and six PS implants failed and two FI and two PS implant participants were lost to follow-up, resulting in survival rates of 100% (CI), 85.7% (FI), and 86.4% (PS) (90.8% overall). Marginal bone level changes were -0.22 mm (CI, P < .05), -1.2 mm (FI, P < .05), and -1.32 mm (PS, P < .05) after 1 year. Marginal bone level stability (≤ 0.5-mm bone loss or gain) was recorded for 87% (CI), 8% (FI), and 27% (PS) of implants. Measurement of midbuccal mucosal zenith and papilla positions revealed no change in the mucosal positions and 0.2 to 0.3 mm of gain in papilla dimensions in all groups.
Conclusion: Significant differences in marginal bone loss were observed among the three implant-abutment interfaces. At 1 year follow-up, changes in the buccal mucosal zenith position or papilla dimensions were not discernable. A continued longitudinal evaluation of peri-implant bone and mucosal changes around these different interfaces is ongoing.

Keywords: immediate provisionalization, esthetics, marginal bone levels, peri-implant mucosa