Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 4, 2025
Oral Biofilm Formation on Different Materials for Dental Implants
Published on: June 24, 2018
Cross-sectional evaluation of clinical and immunological parameters at partially microgrooved vs machined abutments
Gerhard Iglhaut1,2, Sebastian Salomon3, Tobias Fretwurst4
1Department of Oral and Craniomaxillofacial Surgery, Translational Implantology, Center for Dental Medicine, University Medical Center of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. dr.iglhaut@t-online.de.
Objective:
The objective of the present study was to examine the clinical and immunological parameters in samples collected from the peri-implant crevicular fluid (PICF) of machined titanium (M) abutments compared to titanium abutments with a laser-microtextured surface (LMS) on dental implants.
Material And Methods:
A total of 40 patients with one titanium implant, half of them (n=20) provided with a M abutment (control group) and the other half (n=20) with LMS abutments (test group), were included in the study. Clinical parameters pocket probing depth (PD), full-mouth plaque score (FMPS), radiographic bone loss (RBL), clinical attachment level (CAL), mucosal recession (MR), bleeding on probing (BOP), and width of keratinized mucosa (KM) were evaluated. The peri-implant sulcus fluid was analyzed for cytokines IL-1α, IL-1β, IL-6, IL-8, and IL-10 via flow cytometry.
Results:
Clinical evaluation demonstrated no significant difference of PD (mean LMS = 3.50 mm/SD 0.95 mm vs mean M = 3.45 mm/SD 0.76 mm (p=0.855)), MR (mean LMS = 0.30 mm/SD 0.57 mm vs mean M = 0.35 mm/SD 0.67 mm (p=0.801)), CAL (mean LMS = 3.60 mm/SD 1.14 mm vs mean M = 3.55 mm/SD 0.89 mm (p=0.878)), and KM (mean LMS = 2.03 mm/SD 1.08 mm vs mean M = 2.13 mm/SD 0.92 mm (p=0.754)) between LMS and M abutments. LMS abutments showed less BOP than M abutments (26.7% vs 30.8%), but statistically not significant (p = 0.2235). Radiographic bone loss (mean LMS = 0.22 mm/SD 0.44 mm vs mean M = 0.59 mm/SD 0.49 mm) was reduced in the test group in comparison with the control group (p=0.016). In the collected PICF, the levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines IL-1α (median LMS = 180.8 pg/ml vs M = 200.9 pg/ml (p=0.968)) and IL-1β (median LMS = 60.43 pg/ml vs M = 83.11 pg/ml (p=0.4777)) were lower, and the levels of IL-6 (median LMS = 180.8 pg/ml vs M = 200.9 pg/ml (p<0.0001)) were significantly lower in the test group. In contrast, the levels of IL-8 (median LMS = 255.7 pg/ml vs M = 178.7 pg/ml (p=0.3306)) were higher in the test group, though not significantly. The levels of anti-inflammatory IL-10 were significantly increased in the test group (LMS median = 0.555 pg/ml vs M median = 0.465 pg/ml (p=0.0365)). IL-1β showed a significant correlation to radiologic bone loss (p=0.0024). The other variables IL-1α, IL-6, IL-8, and IL-10 had no significant correlation to radiological bone loss.
Conclusion:
Within the limitations of this study, titanium implants provided with laser-microtextured surface abutments seem to demonstrate less pro-inflammatory and more anti-inflammatory activity and to show reduced radiographic bone loss compared to machined titanium abutments.
Clinical Relevance:
The use of laser-microtextured surface abutments might have the potential to support peri-implant tissue health.
