Loading…

Impact of abutment geometry on early implant marginal bone loss. A double‐blind, randomized, 6‐month clinical trial

Objectives The objective of this study was to analyze the impact of the abutment width on early marginal bone loss (MBL). Material and Methods A balanced, randomized, double‐blind clinical trial with two parallel experimental arms was conducted without a control group. The arms were “cylindrical” ab...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Clinical oral implants research 2022-10, Vol.33 (10), p.1038-1048
Main Authors: Pérez‐Sayans, Mario, Castelo‐Baz, Pablo, Penarrocha‐Oltra, David, Seijas‐Naya, Flavio, Conde‐Amboage, Mercedes, Somoza‐Martín, José M.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objectives The objective of this study was to analyze the impact of the abutment width on early marginal bone loss (MBL). Material and Methods A balanced, randomized, double‐blind clinical trial with two parallel experimental arms was conducted without a control group. The arms were “cylindrical” abutment and “concave” abutment. Eighty hexagonal internal connection implants, each with a diameter of 4 × 10 mm, were placed in healed mature bone. The main variable was the peri‐implant tissue stability, which was measured as MBL at 8 weeks and 6 months. Results The final sample consisted of 77 implants that were placed in 25 patients. 38 (49.4%) were placed using the cylindrical abutment, and the other 39 (50.6%) were placed using the concave abutment. The early global MBL of −0.6 ± 0.7 mm in the cylindrical abutment group was significantly higher than it was in the concave abutment group, in which the early global MBL was −0.4 ± 0.6 mm (p = .030). The estimated effect size (ES) was negative for the cylindrical abutment (ES = −1.3730, CI −2.5919 to −0.1327; t‐value = −2.4893; p = .0139), therefore implying a loss of mean bone level, and it was positive for the concave abutment (ES = 2.8231; CI: 1.4379 to 4.2083; t‐value = 4.0957; p = .0002), therefore implying an increase in the average bone level. Conclusions The concave abutments presented significantly less early MBL at 6 months post‐loading than classical cylindrical abutments did.
ISSN:0905-7161
1600-0501
DOI:10.1111/clr.13985