Effects of the implant‐abutment design after dis reconnection on the biological width‐ histomorphometric canine study

Luis Janè‐Chimeno,Xavi RodrÌguez‐Ciurana

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.210_13509

2019-09-01

Clinical Oral Implants Research

Abstract:BackgroundImportant changes on the implant rehabilitation macrodesign as the introduction of the platform‐switching implant and narrow abutment profile became a reality nowadays. Some studies demonstrate that the place where the connective tissue fibers are stabilized in no platform switching and platform switching implants is different. This fact would put the importance of the macrodesign of the rehabilitation further to the inflammatory cell infiltrate produced by the implant abutment interface locationAim/HypothesisThe objective of this study is to analyze the relationship between the macro‐design of the implant‐abutment rehabilitation and the arrangement of the connective tissue fibers and the distance from the microgap of the implant to the first bone‐to‐implant contact after dis reconnection.Material and MethodsFour mandibular premolars on each side of the mandible of Beagle dogs were extracted. Two months after the extractions dental implants with non‐platform‐switching (NPS) and Platform‐switching (PS) designs and exactly the same surface was used (Osseotite surface, Biomet 3i). Six implants (two PS and four NPS) were placed into the healed extraction sites in each dog. Standard diameter healing abutments were placed on NPS and 3.4 mm healing abutments were placed on PS. After 8 weeks of healing the abutment dis reconnections process started until the 18th week after implant placement where the dogs were sacrificed to obtain the implant‐tissue specimens to make the histomorphometric analysis. All the samples were treated as described in the literature. The length of bone, connective tissue contact and the length of the junctional epithelium was measured and compared between mesial and distal design and between several abutment dis‐reconnections by means of the non‐parametric Wilcoxon test.ResultsRegarding bone resorption statistically significant differences were found (P < 0.05) after one abutment dis reconnection in PS and NPS implants, and after four abutment dis reconnection. Statistically significant differences (P < 0.05) were found in the JE length and number of dis reconnections between PS and NPS implants. The JE length around PS implants was shorter than NPS implants and longer as more abutment dis reconnections were performed. CTC length remained stable. Conclusion and Clinical ImplicationsPS implant shows less peri‐implant bone resorption than NPS implant. The study shows that the more abutment dis reconnections the longer JE. We can also suggest that the inward offset of the inflammatory cell infiltrate produced by the implant‐abutment interface on PS implants wouldn't explain the fBIC improvement, it seems that the CT fibers stabilization would be more important in stabilizing the soft and hard tissues than what is expected.

engineering, biomedical,dentistry, oral surgery & medicine