Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 24, 2026
An Improved Mechanical Testing Method to Assess Bone-implant Anchorage
Published on: February 10, 2014
Bone response to loaded implants with non-matching implant-abutment diameters in the canine mandible
David L Cochran1, Dieter D Bosshardt, Leticia Grize
1Department of Periodontics, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX 78229-3900, USA. cochran@uthscsa.edu
Background:
One way to evaluate various implant restorations is to measure the amount of bone change that occurs at the crestal bone. The objective of this study was to histologically evaluate the alveolar bone change around a bone-level, non-matching implant-abutment diameter configuration that incorporated a horizontal offset and a Morse taper internal connection.
Methods:
The study design included extraction of all mandibular premolars and first molars in five canines. After 3 months, 12 dental implants were placed at three levels in each dog: even with the alveolar crest, 1 mm above the alveolar crest, and 1 mm below the alveolar crest. The implants were submerged on one side of the mandible. On the other side, healing abutments were exposed to the oral cavity (non-submerged). Gold crowns were attached 2 months after implant placement. The dogs were sacrificed 6 months postloading, and specimens were processed for histologic and histometric analyses.
Results:
Evaluation of the specimens indicated that the marginal bone remained near the top of the implants under submerged and non-submerged conditions. The amount of bone change for submerged implants placed even with, 1 mm below, and 1 mm above the alveolar crest was -0.34, -1.29, and 0.04 mm, respectively (negative values indicate bone loss). For non-submerged implants, the respective values were -0.38, -1.13, and 0.19 mm. For submerged and non-submerged implants, there were significant differences in the amount of bone change among the three groups (P <0.05). The percentage of bone-to-implant contact for submerged implants was 73.3%, 71.8%, and 71.5%. For non-submerged implants, the respective numbers were 73.2%, 74.5%, and 76%. No significant differences occurred with regard to the percentage of bone contact.
Conclusions:
Minimal histologic bone loss occurred when dental implants with non-matching implant-abutment diameters were placed at the bone crest and were loaded for 6 months in the canine. The bone loss was significantly less (five- to six-fold) than that reported for bone-level implants with matching implant-abutment diameters (butt-joint connections).
