Similar short-term outcomes for bone-level implants with or without intermediate abutments

Area of Science:

• Dentistry
• Biomaterials Science
• Clinical Research

Background:

• Dental implant restorations aim to achieve long-term stability and function.
• The choice between direct implant connections and intermediate abutments can influence peri-implant parameters.
• Understanding the long-term outcomes of different restoration methods is crucial for clinical decision-making.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare the 3-year clinical outcomes of bone-level dental implants restored directly versus those restored with intermediate abutments.
• To evaluate marginal bone loss (MBL), probing pocket depth (PPD), plaque index (PI), bleeding on probing (BOP), and patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

Main Methods:

• A prospective, longitudinal, split-mouth, single-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted.
• 36 patients received either direct screw-retained prostheses or prostheses with intermediate abutments.
• Peri-implant parameters were assessed over a 3-year period, including radiographic and clinical measurements.

Main Results:

• No significant differences were observed in marginal bone level changes between the direct connection and intermediate abutment groups at 36 months.
• Secondary clinical outcomes (PPD, PI, BOP) and patient-reported outcomes showed no significant variations between the groups.
• Minor complications were infrequent and comparable between both restoration methods.

Conclusions:

• Bone-level implants restored with CAD/CAM prostheses directly connected to the implants demonstrate comparable clinical outcomes and marginal bone level stability to those restored with intermediate standardized abutments over 3 years.
• Both restoration approaches appear to be effective for long-term dental implant success.
• The findings support the consideration of direct restorations as a viable option in implant dentistry.