The mucosal attachment at different abutments

Abstract

The present experiment was performed to examine if the material used in the abutment part of an implant system influenced the quality of the mucosal barrier that formed following implant installation. 5 beagle dogs were included in the study. The mandibular premolars and the 1st. 2nd and 3rd maxillary premolars were extracted. Three fixtures of the Brånemark System® were installed in each mandibular quadrant (a total of 6 fixtures per animal). Abutment connection was performed after 3 months of healing. In each dog the following types of abutments were used: 2 “control abutments” (c.p. titanium). 2 “ceramic abutments” (highly sintered Al₂O₃), 1 “gold abutment”, and 1 “short titanium abutment”. This “short titanium abutment” was provided with an outer structure made of dental porcelain fused to gold. Following abutment connection a plaque control program was initiated and maintained for 6 months. The animals were sacrificed and perfused with a fixative. The mandibles were removed and each implant region was dissected, demineralized in EDTA and embedded in EPON®. Semithin sections representing the mesial, distal, buccal and lingual aspects of the peri‐implant tissues were produced and subjected to histological examination. The findings from the analysis demonstrated that the material used in the abutment portion of the implant influenced the location and the quality of the attachment that occurred between the periimplant mucosa and the implant. Abutments made of c.p. titanium or ceramic allowed the formation of a mucosal attachment which included one epithelial and one connective tissue portion that were about 2 mm and 1–1.5 mm high, respectively. At sites where abutments made of gold alloy or dental porcelain were used, no proper attachment formed at the abutment level, but the soft tissue margin receded and bone resorption occurred. The abutment fixture junction was hereby occasionally exposed and the mucosal barrier became established to the fixture portion of the implant. It was suggested that the observed differences were the result of varying adhesive properties of the materials studied or by variations in their resistance to corrosion.