We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website and to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage. You will find more information in our privacy policy. By continuing to use our website, you agree to this. Yes, I agree
European Journal of Oral Implantology
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Eur J Oral Implantol 11 (2018), No. 1     20. Mar. 2018
Eur J Oral Implantol 11 (2018), No. 1  (20.03.2018)

Page 77-87, PubMed:29557402


The role of dental implant abutment design on the aesthetic outcome: preliminary 3-month post-loading results from a multicentre split-mouth randomised controlled trial comparing two different abutment designs
Esposito, Marco / Cardaropoli, Daniele / Gobbato, Luca / Scutellà, Fabio / Fabianelli, Andrea / Mascellani, Saverio / Delli Ficorelli, Gianluca / Mazzocco, Fabio / Sbricoli, Luca / Trullenque-Eriksson, Anna
Purpose: To evaluate whether there are aesthetic and clinical benefits to using a newly designed abutment (Curvomax), over a conventional control abutment (GingiHue).
Materials and methods: A total of 49 patients, who required at least two implants, had two sites randomised according to a split-mouth design to receive one abutment of each type at seven different centres. The time of loading (immediate, early or delayed) and of prosthesis (provisional crowns of fixed prosthesis) was decided by the clinicians, but they had to restore both implants in a similar way. Provisional prostheses were replaced by definitive ones 3 months after initial loading, when the follow-up for the initial part of this study was completed. Outcome measures were: prosthesis failures, implant failures, complications, pink esthetic score (PES), peri-implant marginal bone level changes, and patient preference.
Results: In total, 49 Curvomax and 49 GingiHue abutments were delivered. Two patients dropped out. No implant failure, prosthesis failure or complication was reported. There were no differences at 3 months post-loading for PES (difference = -0.15, 95% CI -0.55 to 0.25; P (paired t test) = 0.443) and marginal bone level changes (difference = -0.02 mm, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.16; P (paired t test) = 0.817). The majority of the patients (30) had no preference regarding the two abutment designs; 11 patients preferred the Curvomax, while five patients preferred the GingiHue abutments (P (McNemar test) = 0.210).
Conclusions: The preliminary results of the comparison between two different abutment designs did not disclose any statistically significant differences between the evaluated abutments. However the large number of missing radiographs and clinical pictures casts doubt on the reliability of the results. Longer follow-ups of wider patient populations are needed to better understand whether there is an effective advantage with one of the two abutment designs.
Conflict of interest statement: This research project was originally partially funded by Biomax (Andover, MA, USA), the manufacturer of the Curvomax abutments evaluated in this investigation. Biomax, under pressure from some investigators, asked to modify the original agreed protocol. In a following phase, Zimmer-Biomet (Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, USA), the manufacturer of the implants and the GingiHue abutments, took over the funding of this project. Data belonged to the authors and the sponsors did not interfere with the publication of results.

Keywords: abutment design, aesthetics, dental implants
fulltext (no access granted) order article as PDF-file (20.00 €)