The effect of one‐time abutment placement on interproximal bone levels and peri‐implant soft tissues: a prospective randomized clinical trial

Abstract

The connection and disconnection of healing abutments is associated with significantly increased bone loss during the healing period between implant placement and 6 months post-loading, when compared to one-time abutment placement.

Esthetic Evaluation of Implant‐Supported Single Crowns: The Implant Restoration Esthetic Index and Patient Perception

“…Mesial papilla presence and distal papilla presence were chosen as parameters of IREI because papillae presence is a key factor of implant esthetics. One of the first attempts to make an esthetic judgment was the Papilla Index, and it was still the most frequently reported index in the literature . The assessment of papillae presence has been involved in different indices with respect to implant esthetics …”

Five‐year outcomes of a randomized clinical trial comparing bone‐level implants with either submerged or transmucosal healing

“…Another possible factor may be due to the different restorative procedures used in each centre, as these were not standardized, but followed the independent protocols in each institution. There is evidence indicating that prosthodontic procedures, including the abutment disconnection–reconnection and the height of the prosthetic abutment, may have an impact on the crestal bone‐level changes (Molina et al., ). In spite of these factors, the differences were minimal with the exception of the 0.33 mm difference at 3 years in the transmucosal group, which may be due that two patients in this group, two lost more than one mm of marginal bone and given that only 14 patients from this group were evaluated at that time point, this factor may have had an important influence.…”

“…Experimental studies have evidenced that repeated disconnection and reconnection of prosthetic components compromised the mucosal barrier around implants and resulted in an apical shift of the bone levels (Abrahamsson, Berglundh, & Lindhe, ). A recent clinical trial comparing the effect of one‐time versus staged placement of the final abutment showed significant bone preservation during healing when abutments were placed once (Molina, Sanz‐Sánchez, Martín, Blanco, & Sanz, ). Similarly, the healing of the soft tissues around the implant neck may influence the future stability of the peri‐implant environment.…”

Hard and soft tissue integration of immediate and delayed implants with a modified coronal macrodesign: Histological, micro‐CT and volumetric soft tissue changes from a pre‐clinical in vivo study

“…With this goal, different implant macrodesigns have been experimentally evaluated reporting similar degree of hard tissue integration and mucosal attachment (Abrahamsson, Berglundh, Wennstrom, & Lindhe, ; De Sanctis, Vignoletti, Discepoli, Munoz, & Sanz, ; De Sanctis, Vignoletti, Discepoli, Zucchelli, & Sanz, ). There are however some factors that have shown to significantly reduce bone remodelling, such as a tight implant to abutment connection (Pessoa et al., ); a reduced number of abutment connections and disconnections (Molina, Sanz‐Sanchez, Martin, Blanco, & Sanz, ); the distance between the bone crest to the implant to abutment connection (Alomrani et al., ); and the horizontal mismatching of the abutment to the implant platform (Schwarz, Hegewald, & Becker, ). Similarly, the use of narrow implants has been advocated to increase peri‐implant crestal bone thickness (Galindo‐Moreno et al., ; Ioannidis et al., ).…”