Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 22, 2026
An Improved Mechanical Testing Method to Assess Bone-implant Anchorage
Published on: February 10, 2014
Marginal Bone Remodeling around healing Abutment vs Final Abutment Placement at Second Stage Implant Surgery: A
Nabih Nader1, Maissa Aboulhosn1, Antoine Berberi2
1School of Dentistry, Lebanese University, Beirut, Lebanon.
Background:
The periimplant bone level has been used as one of the criteria to assess the success of dental implants. It has been documented that the bone supporting two-piece implants undergoes resorption first following the second-stage surgery and later on further to abutment connection and delivery of the final prosthesis.
Objective:
The aim of this multicentric randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the crestal bone resorption around internal connection dental implants using a new surgical protocol that aims to respect the biological distance, relying on the benefit of a friction fit connection abutment (test group) compared with implants receiving conventional healing abutments at second-stage surgery (control group).
Materials And Methods:
A total of partially edentulous patients were consecutively treated at two private clinics, with two adjacent two-stage implants. Three months after the first surgery, one of the implants was randomly allocated to the control group and was uncovered using a healing abutment, while the other implant received a standard final abutment and was seated and tightened to 30 Ncm. At each step of the prosthetic try-in, the abutment in the test group was removed and then retightened to 30 Ncm. Horizontal bone changes were assessed using periapical radiographs immediately after implant placement and at 3 (second-stage surgery), 6, 9 and 12 months follow-up examinations.
Results:
At 12 months follow-up, no implant failure was reported in both groups. In the control group, the mean periimplant bone resorption was 0.249 ± 0.362 at M3, 0.773 ± 0.413 at M6, 0.904 ± 0.36 at M9 and 1.047 ± 0.395 at M12. The test group revealed a statistically significant lower marginal bone loss of 20.88% at M3 (0.197 ± 0.262), 22.25% at M6 (0.601 ± 0.386), 24.23% at M9 (0.685 ± 0.341) and 19.2% at M9 (0.846 ± 0.454). The results revealed that bone loss increased over time, with the greatest change in bone loss occurring between 3 and 6 months. Alveolar bone loss was significantly greater in the control condition than the test condition.
Conclusion:
The results of this prospective study demonstrated the benefit of placing a prosthetic component with a stable connection at second-stage surgery, in terms of reduced marginal bone remodeling when compared with conventional procedure.
Clinical Significance:
The use of a stable connection in a healing component during try-in stages prior to final restoration placement leads to less periimplant marginal bone loss.
