» Articles » PMID: 33728493

Laser Microgrooved Vs. Machined Healing Abutment Disconnection/reconnection: a Comparative Clinical, Radiographical and Biochemical Study with Split-mouth Design

Overview
Publisher Springer
Specialty Dentistry
Date 2021 Mar 17
PMID 33728493
Citations 8
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Repeated removal and replacement of healing abutments result in frequent injuries to the soft tissues.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of disconnection/reconnection of laser microgrooved vs. machined healing and prosthetic abutments on clinical periodontal parameters, marginal bone levels, and proinflammatory cytokine levels around dental implants.

Material And Methods: Twenty-four patients each received 2 implants with one-stage protocol in a split-mouth design on the same jaw. In each patient, one healing and prosthetic abutments with a laser microgrooved surface (LMS group) and one healing and prosthetic abutments with machined surface (MS group) were used. Four months following implant placement (T0), the healing abutments were disconnnected and reconnected three times to carry out the impression procedures and metal framework try-in. Four weeks later (T1), definitive prosthetic abutments were installated with screw-retained crowns. Modified plaque index (mPI), modified gingival index (mGI) bleeding on probing (BOP), and probing depth (PD) were recorded at T0 and T1. At the same time points, samples for immunological analyses were taken from the sulcus around each implant. Peri-implant crevicular fluid (PICF) samples were analyzed for interleukin-1beta (IL-1β), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α levels using the ELISA kit.

Results: At T0 and T1, mPI and mGI showed no statistical difference between the two groups, while higher PD and BoP values were noted for the MS group (P < 0.05). The mean PICF volume and mean concentrations of IL-1β, IL-6, and (TNF)-α in the LMS group were statistically less than those in the MS group (P < 0.05). In addition, comparison of IL-6 and IL-1β mean concentrations at T0 and T1 in the MS group showed a statistically significant increase (p < 0.05) over time, which was not noted for the LMS.

Conclusion: Disconnection/reconnection of healing and prosthetic abutments with a laser-microgrooved surface resulted in less inflammatory molecular response compared with conventional machined ones.

Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04415801 , registered 03/06/2020.

Citing Articles

Mechanical Behavior of Five Different Morse Taper Implants and Abutments with Different Conical Internal Connections and Angles: An In Vitro Experimental Study.

Caballero C, Rodriguez F, Cortellari G, Scarano A, Prados-Frutos J, De Aza P J Funct Biomater. 2024; 15(7).

PMID: 39057299 PMC: 11277867. DOI: 10.3390/jfb15070177.


Effect of laser-microtextured abutments on peri-implant outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Huaman-Mendoza A, Bommarito R, Hagy M, Vilela N, Romano M, Braga M Clin Oral Investig. 2024; 28(7):388.

PMID: 38898305 DOI: 10.1007/s00784-024-05785-1.


New insights on collagen structural organization and spatial distribution around dental implants: a comparison between machined and laser-treated surfaces.

Belloni A, Argentieri G, Orilisi G, Notarstefano V, Giorgini E, DAddazio G J Transl Med. 2024; 22(1):120.

PMID: 38297308 PMC: 10829267. DOI: 10.1186/s12967-024-04906-4.


Influence of rough micro-threaded and laser micro-textured implant-neck on peri-implant tissues: A systematic review.

Huraib W, Pullishery F, Al-Ghalib T, Tash Niyazi A, Binhuraib H, El Homossany M Saudi Dent J. 2023; 35(6):602-613.

PMID: 37817785 PMC: 10562115. DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2023.05.025.


Biomechanical Stress Analysis of Platform Switch Implants of Varying Diameters on Different Densities of Bone.

Mukherjee S, Rodrigues S, M M, Shetty T, Pai U, Saldanha S Int J Dent. 2022; 2022:5972259.

PMID: 35251181 PMC: 8894074. DOI: 10.1155/2022/5972259.


References
1.
Comut A, Weber H, Shortkroff S, Cui F, Spector M . Connective tissue orientation around dental implants in a canine model. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001; 12(5):433-40. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.120502.x. View

2.
Nevins M, Camelo M, Nevins M, Schupbach P, Kim D . Connective tissue attachment to laser-microgrooved abutments: a human histologic case report. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2012; 32(4):385-92. View

3.
Bhardwaj S, Prabhuji M . Comparative volumetric and clinical evaluation of peri-implant sulcular fluid and gingival crevicular fluid. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2013; 43(5):233-42. PMC: 3825991. DOI: 10.5051/jpis.2013.43.5.233. View

4.
Barros S, Williams R, Offenbacher S, Morelli T . Gingival crevicular fluid as a source of biomarkers for periodontitis. Periodontol 2000. 2015; 70(1):53-64. PMC: 4911175. DOI: 10.1111/prd.12107. View

5.
Blazquez-Hinarejos M, Ayuso-Montero R, Alvarez-Lopez J, Manzanares-Cespedes M, Lopez-Lopez J . Histological differences in the adherence of connective tissue to laser-treated abutments and standard abutments for dental implants. An experimental pilot study in humans. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2017; 22(6):e774-e779. PMC: 5813997. DOI: 10.4317/medoral.21949. View