Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 3, 2026
An Improved Mechanical Testing Method to Assess Bone-implant Anchorage
Published on: February 10, 2014
Peri-implant soft tissue and marginal bone adaptation on implant with non-matching healing abutments: micro-CT
Gary Finelle1, Dimitrios E V Papadimitriou1, André B Souza2
1Division of Regenerative and Implant Sciences, Department of Restorative Dentistry and Biomaterials Sciences, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Purpose:
To assess (i) the outcome of changing the horizontal-offset dimension on the peri-implant soft tissues and the crestal bone and (ii) the effect of different healing abutments (flared vs. straight) on the marginal peri-implant soft tissues and crestal bone.
Materials And Methods:
Two-piece dental implants diameters of 3.5 and 4.5 mm were placed at least 1 mm subcrestal in five beagle dogs. Three different investigational groups: (i) 3.5-mm-diameter implant with narrow healing abutment (3.5N), (ii) 4.5-mm-diameter implant with narrow healing abutment (4.5N), and (iii) 3.5-mm-diameter implant with wide healing abutment (3.5W), were assessed. After 4 months of healing, the vertical distance from the marginal crestal bone (MB) to the implant shoulder (IS); the vertical distance from the IS to the first bone-to-implant contact; and the horizontal distance of bone ingrowth on the implant platform were measured with a high-resolution micro-CT (Xradia MicroXCT-200 system).
Results:
Implants with a narrow healing caps showed an interproximal MB located between 0 and 1 mm above the implant shoulder, while the 3.5W group exhibits a mean value -0.50 mm. As all implants in group 3.5N presented a fBIC located at the level of the IS. For the 4.5N group, the mean fBIC-IS distance was -0.52 mm apically to the IS. For the 3.5WC group, the mean fBIC-IS distance was -1.42 mm. Horizontal bone apposition was only observed for the 3.5N group and the 4.5N group.
Conclusion:
The dimension of the horizontal offset would play a minimal role in reducing bone remodeling, whereas the configuration of the transmucosal component would directly influence marginal bone remodeling.
