Article

Influence of abutment material on stability of peri-implant tissues: a systematic review

Vilnius Implantology Center, Kalvariju str. 121-2, LT-08221, Vilnius, Lithuania.
The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants (Impact Factor: 1.49). 01/2008; 23(3):449-56.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate available evidence for a difference in the stability of peri-implant tissues between titanium abutments versus gold alloy, zirconium oxide, or aluminum oxide abutments.
Studies were identified by examining several electronic databases and major dental implant, prosthetic, and periodontal journals. To be selected for the preliminary article pool, the article must have been written in the English language and published from 1980 to March 2007. Articles were sorted based on the nature of the study. In vitro studies and literature reviews were excluded. The included articles were clinical, human histology, and animal studies. Case reports, case series, uncontrolled clinical trials, and clinical studies with teeth treated as a control were excluded from the final review.
The initial article pool included 40 articles of which 9 met the inclusion criteria: 3 animal studies, 2 human histological studies, and 4 randomized clinical trials. Soft tissue recession was not accurately measured in the included clinical studies. Assessment of peri-implant tissues around zirconium oxide and titanium abutments was described only in animal and human histologic studies. Due to differences in study types, timing of follow-ups, and outcome variables, meta-analysis could not be performed.
Included studies revealed that titanium abutments did not maintain a higher bone level in comparison to gold alloy, aluminum oxide, or zirconium oxide abutments. However, there is a lack of information about the clinical performance of zirconium oxide and gold alloy abutments as compared to titanium abutments.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Tomas Linkevicius, Jan 12, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
85 Views
  • Source
    • "This murine model also can be used for studying how surface and shape modifications to the neck of the implant, or the connector, affect the adhesion of the connective tissue fibroblasts in vivo. Similar studies have been conducted in dogs [39], but mice offer a wide array of molecular and cellular tools with which to analyze the cellular and tissue-level responses that are unavailable for canine species. Other groups [19] [20] [21] have used rodents with similar maxillary models, where implant is placed in a ridge defect model where a tooth never existed. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Many of our assumptions concerning oral implant osseointegration are extrapolated from experimental models studying skeletal tissue repair in long bones. This disconnect between clinical practice and experimental research hampers our understanding of bone formation around oral implants and how this process can be improved. We postulated that oral implant osseointegration would be fundamentally equivalent to implant osseointegration elsewhere in the body. Mice underwent implant placement in the edentulous ridge anterior to the first molar and peri-implant tissues were evaluated at various timepoints after surgery. Our hypothesis was disproven; oral implant osseointegration is substantially different from osseointegration in long bones. For example, in the maxilla peri-implant pre-osteoblasts are derived from cranial neural crest whereas in the tibia peri-implant osteoblasts are derived from mesoderm. In the maxilla, new osteoid arises from periostea of the maxillary bone but in the tibia the new osteoid arises from the marrow space. Cellular and molecular analyses indicate that osteoblast activity and mineralization proceeds from the surfaces of the native bone and osteoclastic activity is responsible for extensive remodeling of the new peri-implant bone. In addition to histologic features of implant osseointegration, molecular and cellular assays conducted in a murine model provide new insights into the sequelae of implant placement and the process by which bone is generated around implants.
    Bone 07/2013; 58. DOI:10.1016/j.bone.2013.07.021 · 4.46 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose The aim of this study was to compare selected crevicular markers in early wound healing after second stage surgery and immediately restored implant placement. Material and methods A total of ten patients (mean age 53 years, 6 females and 4 males) to be treated with all together 20 single tooth implants were enrolled in the study. In 9 cases a second stage surgery after conventional submerged implant healing was performed, in the remaining 11 cases immediate implants were planned prior to tooth extraction. Beginning 1 day after implant installation and provisional restoration according to the copy abutment technique and 1 day after healing abutment insertion, respectively, peri-implant crevicular fluid samples (PICF) were collected, the PICF flow rate was recorded and laboratory assays performed for the assessment of interleukin-1β (IL-1β) and neutrophil elastase (NPE) concentrations (T1). Follow-up intervals were scheduled 1–3 weeks postoperatively (T2–4). Statistical analyses included explorative data analysis and median statistics (Wilcoxon test). Results Wound healing was uneventful in all cases and the concentrations of IL-1β and NPE remained stable over the entire observation period. Standard deviations and medians for IL-1β were higher in the second stage implant group with statistically significant differences in the concentrations on T2 and T4. No differences were found for NPE. Conclusions The small sample size of this pilot investigation requires careful interpretation of the data presented. Within the limitations of this study it may be concluded that both immediately placed implants and implants at second stage surgery show similar patterns of wound healing with regard to selected markers of peri-implant disease, with minor differences in IL-1β concentrations on follow-up in favor of immediate implantation and restoration.
    international journal of stomatology & occlusion medicine 12/2012; 5(4). DOI:10.1007/s12548-012-0060-9
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Literature 1. Ozkurt Z.,Kazazoglu E: Clinical success of zirconia in dental applications. J Prosthodont 2010; 19: 64-68. 2. Oliva X, Oliva J, Oliva JD: Full-mouth oral rehabilitation in a titanium allergy patient using zirconium oxide dental implants and zirconium oxide restorations. A case report from an ongoing clinical study. Eur J Esthet Dent 2010; 5: 190-203. 3. Bonfante EA, Coelho PG, Navarro JM, Jr., Pegoraro LF, Bonfante G, Thompson VP, Silva NR: Reliability and failure modes of implant-supported Y-TZP and MCR three-unit bridges. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2010; 12: 235-243. 4. Abbo B, Razzoog ME, Vivas J, Sierraalta M: Resistance to dislodgement of zirconia copings cemented onto titanium abutments of different heights. J Prosthet Dent 2008; 99: 25-29. 5. Jemt T: Customized titanium single-implant abutments: 2-year follow-up pilot study. Int J Prosthodont 1998; 11: 312-316. 6. Marchack CB: A custom titanium abutment for the anterior single-tooth implant. J Prosthet Dent 1996; 76: 288-291. 7. Zembic A, Sailer I, Jung RE, Hammerle CH: Randomized-controlled clinical trial of customized zirconia and titanium implant abutments for single-tooth implants in canine and posterior regions: 3-year results. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009; 20: 802-808.
Show more