A comparative study of the clinical application of anatomical healing abutments versus finished healing abutments for mandibular first molar implants / 口腔疾病防治

ABSTRACT

Objective @#To evaluate the effect of anatomical healing abutments for mandibular first molars on the morphological changes of gingival soft tissue after implant restoration, as well as on peri-implant gingival molding, food ingrowth and patient satisfaction, to provide a basis for clinical selection. @*Methods @# Twenty-six patients who received implant restoration for a single missing mandibular first molar between September 2020 and September 2021 at the Oral Implant Center of Changsha Stomatological Hospital were randomly divided into a control group (13 cases with 14 implants) and a trial group (13 cases with 14 implants), of which 12 were male and 14 were female; the trial group had anatomical healing abutments applied for 4 weeks and then underwent crown restoration, while the control group finished five time points (before the second stage surgery, 4 weeks after the second stage surgery, immediately after the crown restoration, 4 weeks after the crown restoration, and 12 weeks after the crown restoration). A 3Shape intraoral scanner was used to scan the jaw before and 4 weeks after the second stage surgery to quantify the soft tissue changes and compare the effect of the healing abutment on gingival molding between the two groups. The incidence of food impaction was recorded and compared between the two groups at 4 weeks and 12 weeks after crown restoration. Patient satisfaction was recorded and compared between the two groups immediately after crown restoration, 4 weeks after crown restoration and 12 weeks after crown restoration@*Results @# Four weeks after implant surgery, it was observed that the gingival proximal and distal gingival papillae increased on the coronal side in the test group compared to the control group, 0.50 (0.26, 0.72) mm in the near-medium test group and 0.27 (0.24, 0.38) mm in the control group, with a statistically significant difference (P = 0.029), and 0.48 (0.26, 0.62) mm in the far-medium test group and 0.23 (0.13, 0.39) mm in the control group, with a statistically significant difference (P = 0.004). There was no statistically significant difference (P>0.05) in the buccolingual to gingival margin apex to coronal molding or in the buccolingual to lingual soft tissue at 0, 1, or 2 mm of the root of the middle 1/3 apex of the buccal and lingual gingival margins between the two groups. Compared to the control group, there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of food impaction observed 4 weeks and 12 weeks after crown restoration in the test group (P>0.05). The satisfaction scores were higher in the trial group than in the control group immediately, 4 weeks, and 12 weeks after crown restoration, and the difference between the groups was statistically significant (P < 0.05). @*Conclusion @# The anatomical healing abutment for the implant mandibular first molar was superior to the finished healing abutment in terms of soft tissue contouring with an increase in the coronal aspect of the proximal and distal gingival papillae, resulting in high patient satisfaction.