Clinical oral implants research · 2025
Influence of Abutment Shape on Implant Marginal Bone Remodeling: A Double-Blind, Randomized 24-Month Clinical Study.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Seijas Naya Flavio, Bernabeu Mira Juan C, Pérez Jardón Alba, Conde Amboage Mercedes, Peñarrocha Oltra David, Camacho Alonso Fabio, Pérez Sayáns Mario
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study follows a 2-year evaluation to verify marginal bone remodeling (MBR) trends associated with different abutment designs.
METHODS: A balanced, randomised, double-blind clinical trial with two parallel experimental arms. 68 implants were placed in 9 men and 12 women, 48.5% using the straight abutment and 51.5% the concave abutment. The primary variable was peri-implant tissue stability, measured by marginal bone loss (MBL) or gain (MBG) through digital radiology. Mixed linear regression models and Additive Generalized Additive Models were constructed to estimate MBR, simultaneously considering the variables abutment height, group, and time.
RESULTS: At 24 months, linear mixed-effects regression models revealed that the concave abutment group exhibited significantly less MBL than the straight abutment group across mesial, distal, and average measurements (p = 0.006-0.026). Significant interactions between abutment type and time at 8 weeks and 6 months suggest early and sustained benefits of the concave design. At 24 months, this effect remained significant except in the mesial model (p = 0.072). Abutment height was positively associated with MBL, particularly in the straight group; however, in the concave group, greater height mitigated bone loss (p < 0.01).
CONCLUSION: Concave abutments demonstrated a potential advantage in reducing early marginal bone loss and promoting mid-term bone stability compared to straight abutments. Their design may enhance soft tissue adaptation, contributing to improved peri-implant bone preservation. While increased abutment height showed a protective effect in the concave group, these findings require confirmation. Further long-term studies are warranted to validate these results and clarify their clinical relevance.
METHODS: A balanced, randomised, double-blind clinical trial with two parallel experimental arms. 68 implants were placed in 9 men and 12 women, 48.5% using the straight abutment and 51.5% the concave abutment. The primary variable was peri-implant tissue stability, measured by marginal bone loss (MBL) or gain (MBG) through digital radiology. Mixed linear regression models and Additive Generalized Additive Models were constructed to estimate MBR, simultaneously considering the variables abutment height, group, and time.
RESULTS: At 24 months, linear mixed-effects regression models revealed that the concave abutment group exhibited significantly less MBL than the straight abutment group across mesial, distal, and average measurements (p = 0.006-0.026). Significant interactions between abutment type and time at 8 weeks and 6 months suggest early and sustained benefits of the concave design. At 24 months, this effect remained significant except in the mesial model (p = 0.072). Abutment height was positively associated with MBL, particularly in the straight group; however, in the concave group, greater height mitigated bone loss (p < 0.01).
CONCLUSION: Concave abutments demonstrated a potential advantage in reducing early marginal bone loss and promoting mid-term bone stability compared to straight abutments. Their design may enhance soft tissue adaptation, contributing to improved peri-implant bone preservation. While increased abutment height showed a protective effect in the concave group, these findings require confirmation. Further long-term studies are warranted to validate these results and clarify their clinical relevance.