Get access
Clinical Oral Implants Research

Peri-implant soft tissue and marginal bone adaptation on implant with non-matching healing abutments: micro-CT analysis

Authors

  • Gary Finelle,

    1. Division of Regenerative and Implant Sciences, Department of Restorative Dentistry and Biomaterials Sciences, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Dimitrios E. V. Papadimitriou,

    1. Division of Regenerative and Implant Sciences, Department of Restorative Dentistry and Biomaterials Sciences, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • André B. Souza,

    1. Department of Dentistry, State University of Maringa, Parana, Brazil
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Negin Katebi,

    1. Department of Developmental Biology, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • German O. Gallucci,

    Corresponding author
    1. Division of Regenerative and Implant Sciences, Department of Restorative Dentistry and Biomaterials Sciences, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA
    • Corresponding author:

      German O. Gallucci, DMD, Dr Med Dent PhD

      Department of Restorative Dentistry and Biomaterials Sciences, Harvard School of Dental Medicine Harvard University, 188, Longwood Avenue, 02115 Boston, MA, USA

      Tel.: +16174325764

      Fax: +16174320901

      e-mail: german_gallucci@hsdm.harvard.edu

    Search for more papers by this author
  • Mauricio G. Araújo

    1. Department of Dentistry, State University of Maringa, Parana, Brazil
    Search for more papers by this author

Abstract

Purpose

To assess (i) the outcome of changing the horizontal-offset dimension on the peri-implant soft tissues and the crestal bone and (ii) the effect of different healing abutments (flared vs. straight) on the marginal peri-implant soft tissues and crestal bone.

Materials and Methods

Two-piece dental implants diameters of 3.5 and 4.5 mm were placed at least 1 mm subcrestal in five beagle dogs. Three different investigational groups: (i) 3.5-mm-diameter implant with narrow healing abutment (3.5N), (ii) 4.5-mm-diameter implant with narrow healing abutment (4.5N), and (iii) 3.5-mm-diameter implant with wide healing abutment (3.5W), were assessed. After 4 months of healing, the vertical distance from the marginal crestal bone (MB) to the implant shoulder (IS); the vertical distance from the IS to the first bone-to-implant contact; and the horizontal distance of bone ingrowth on the implant platform were measured with a high-resolution micro-CT (Xradia MicroXCT-200 system).

Results

Implants with a narrow healing caps showed an interproximal MB located between 0 and 1 mm above the implant shoulder, while the 3.5W group exhibits a mean value −0.50 mm. As all implants in group 3.5N presented a fBIC located at the level of the IS. For the 4.5N group, the mean fBIC-IS distance was −0.52 mm apically to the IS. For the 3.5WC group, the mean fBIC-IS distance was −1.42 mm. Horizontal bone apposition was only observed for the 3.5N group and the 4.5N group.

Conclusion

The dimension of the horizontal offset would play a minimal role in reducing bone remodeling, whereas the configuration of the transmucosal component would directly influence marginal bone remodeling.

Get access to the full text of this article

Ancillary