ライフサイエンスコーパス: abutment

1 owns were adhesively bonded to a dentin-like abutment.

2 dodontically treated and fiber post-restored abutment.

3 microgap (interface) between the implant and abutment.

4 ee, and gingival height of the titanium base abutment.

5 nd 14 with a screw-retained internal hexagon abutment.

6 cs of the connection between the fixture and abutment.

7 d and connected to the corresponding healing abutments.

8 sinus, and lack of stable teeth to serve as abutments.

9 igue strengths and ideal reduction of dental abutments.

10 differences between concave and cylindrical abutments.

11 designing two-piece zirconia dental implant abutments.

12 analyzed: cylindrical abutments and concave abutments.

13 tation between implants and their respective abutments.

14 ne) and 3 weeks after insertion of the final abutments.

15 fter loading without removal of the original abutments.

16 -taper connection that connected to standard abutments.

17 ernal connection that connected to multibase abutments.

18 se/perpendicular fibers than for cylindrical abutments (15.68 +/- 4.57).

19 Collagen fiber orientation favored concave abutments (23.76 +/- 5.86), with significantly more tran

20 ngual implant position; 2) platform-switched abutments; 3) flapless approach; 4) bone grafts to fill

21 her percentage of tissue remnants on concave abutments (42.47 +/- 1.32; 45.12 +/- 3.03) (p < 0.05).

22 Nonsplinted implants, platform-switched abutments, abutment heights >=2 mm, and a one abutment-o

23 nclusion criteria, including placement of an abutment and provisional restoration within 63 days of s

24 the distance between the top of the implant/abutment and the most coronal bone-to-implant contact (D

25 Two groups were analyzed: cylindrical abutments and concave abutments.

26 terial leakage through the interface between abutments and dental implants of external hexagon (EH) a

27 As a major difference, however, abutments and implants of types A, B, and C were laser-w

28 ents, as opposed to types D, E, and F, where abutments and implants were held together by abutment sc

29 igatures were next placed around the healing-abutments and plaque control measures were abandoned.

30 Permanent standard abutments and temporary restorations were immediately fi

31 taper connections that connected to standard abutments and the same abutments with a 0.5-mm groove mo

32 to the implant, the shape and height of the abutment, and the length of the cantilever (part of the

33 aps and cavities between the implant and the abutment, and these hollow spaces can act as a trap for

34 Impression copings were attached to the abutments, and the modified denture was used for a pick-

35 sting for vertical implant position, implant abutment angle and the group, the effect became borderli

36 wn angle, influenced by implant position and abutment angle, might be associated with mucosal margin

37 t level, inter-implant distance, implant and abutment angulation, and presence of open contacts, as r

38 terial penetration of screw-retained implant-abutment assemblies.

39 rom the inside to the outside of the implant-abutment assembly in three different connection types.

40 e hermeticity of the cement-retained implant-abutment assembly, the very low permeability to bacteria

41 nts, a second stage surgery and transmucosal abutment attachment was performed at week 12.

42 ng to connection design and treatment of the abutment base: 1) no treatment (control); 2) DLC film de

43 fit of the gold cylinders to the prosthetic abutments (baseline).

44 of argon could be used to disinfect implant abutments before insertion to minimize future peri-impla

45 the amount of residual coronal tissues after abutment buildup and final preparation: A) >50% of coron

46 d by possible movements between implants and abutments, but not by the size of the microgap (interfac

47 p B using an individualized CAD/CAM zirconia abutment (CARES abutment; Institut Straumann AG) with a

48 f the central implant to support the central abutment caused major increases in nerve pressure.

49 quired less extensive modification of dental abutments compared to zirconia crowns.

50 f internal surfaces; and 3) with the implant-abutment components again assembled as units to measure

51 under three conditions: 1) with the implant-abutment components assembled as units to investigate fo

52 sible lack of the central fixture in a three-abutment configuration, and against different levels of

53 ) 1 mm above the bone crest level and having abutments connected at the time of first-stage surgery.

54 plants were placed at the alveolar crest and abutments connected either at initial surgery (non-subme

55 5% CI = 1.16-3.73), with bone-level platform-abutment connection (OR = 4.73, 95% CI = 1.94-11.49) and

56 ss, histomorphometrically, (1) the timing of abutment connection and (2) the influence of a microgap.

57 arginal bone level of 1.20 mm (SD+/-0.94) at abutment connection and 1.30 mm (SD+/-0.87) at follow-up

58 standardized periapical radiographs taken at abutment connection and an average follow-up of 3.9 year

59 ap of dental implants with different fixture-abutment connection characteristics.

60 acement for non-submerged implants and after abutment connection for submerged implants.

61 nt in nonsubmerged implants or 1 month after abutment connection in submerged implants.

62 B, and C had a microgap between the implant-abutment connection of <10 microm, 50 microm, or 100 mic

63 For maxillary implants, at abutment connection the average marginal bone level was

64 For mandibular implants, at abutment connection the mean marginal bone level as meas

65 implant-abutment mismatch sizes and implant-abutment connection types may influence the peri-implant

66 bility of implants from implant placement to abutment connection utilizing resonance frequency analys

67 erage interval between implant insertion and abutment connection was 5.6 months (SD 2.05).

68 Three months after implant placement, abutment connection was performed in the submerged impla

69 istal measurements for maxillary implants at abutment connection were 1.02 mm (SD+/-0.59) and 1.36 mm

70 age mandibular mesial-distal measurements at abutment connection were 1.05 mm (SD+/-0.92) and 1.54 mm

71 Two months after healing-abutment connection, a 2-month plaque control program wa

72 llin, anterior location, bone-level platform-abutment connection, and supracrestal implant placement

73 meability to bacteria of the conical implant-abutment connection, and the high prevalence of bacteria

74 Following abutment connection, final restorations were inserted (b

75 d/or mechanical disruption during insertion, abutment connection, or removal of failing implants.

76 Immediately before abutment connection, patients were randomly assigned to

77 ases in levels between implant insertion and abutment connection.

78 urements were taken at implant placement and abutment connection.

79 ained while exposing the implant for healing abutment connection.

80 provisional crown (test) or standard healing abutment (control) after immediate implant placement.

81 Contamination of implant abutments could potentially influence the peri-implant t

82 of the final crown contour, measured as the abutment-crown angle (ACA), was estimated with a linear

83 ted and implants were mounted with different abutment/crown material (i.e., titanium abutments with a

84 While abutment/crown material and implant diameter had no effe

85 bone thickness (BBT), implant diameter, and abutment/crown material influence the accuracy of cone-b

86 The use of definitive abutments (DAs) at time of implant placement has been in

87 ), and 4.5 mm (conventional matching implant-abutment design [CD]).

88 Reduced abutment diameter (i.e., platform switching) resulted in

89 ge around a bone-level, non-matching implant-abutment diameter configuration that incorporated a hori

90 When the abutment diameter decreased from 5.0 to 4.5 mm and then

91 the coronal aspect of implants with reduced abutment diameter placed non-submerged and at subcrestal

92 or bone-level implants with matching implant-abutment diameters (butt-joint connections).

93 implant collar and to analyze how different abutment diameters influenced the crestal bone stress le

94 en dental implants with non-matching implant-abutment diameters were placed at the bone crest and wer

95 The two abutments differ in that interface I results in an "in l

96 of implant placement, at 2 months, at every abutment dis/reconnection, and at sacrifice.

97 protocol resulted in less MBL than repeated abutment disconnections (10 articles, p < 0.0001).

98 Concave abutments exhibited greater total height (concave: 3.57

99 mplant healing, implants were uncovered, and abutment fixing was done using cyanoacrylate to prevent

100 The use of a healing abutment for "tenting effect" has limited efficacy to ob

101 x 2 x 2 mm) was harvested around the healing abutment for the analysis of gene expression at uncovery

102 paired to form a palindrome either by direct abutment, forming the nucleation site for a tandem 2:1 c

103 P), cantilever length, mucosal height of the abutment (HA), interproximal contact level, inter-implan

104 6 and 18 months were mainly affected by the abutment height but were also significantly influenced b

105 The abutment height is a key factor in MBL.

106 udy, we analyzed the influence of prosthetic abutment height on marginal bone loss (MBL) around impla

107 Abutment heights >=2 mm are associated with less MBL tha

108 inted implants, platform-switched abutments, abutment heights >=2 mm, and a one abutment-one time app

109 crown of the homologous tooth and a visible abutment/implant fixture exposed to the oral cavity.

110 The size of the microgap at the abutment/implant interface had no significant effect upo

111 l with 37 patients, comparing the 2 types of abutments in the same mouth over 12 weeks.

112 ended barrier epithelium, versus cylindrical abutments in thick tissue phenotype.

113 face or the microgap between the implant and abutment influences the amount of crestal bone loss in u

114 he day of implant placement to uncovering or abutment installation/crown delivery.

115 ividualized CAD/CAM zirconia abutment (CARES abutment; Institut Straumann AG) with a hand buildup tec

116 bridement was conducted, and a novel healing abutment integrating active (25 test) or inactive (22 co

117 The geometry of the fixture-abutment interface (FAI) might influence the risk of bac

118 In summary, the absence of an implant-abutment interface (microgap) at the bone crest was asso

119 al dimension of the bone loss at the implant-abutment interface and to determine if this lateral dime

120 An implant-abutment interface at the alveolar bone crest is associa

121 crual increased progressively as the implant-abutment interface depth increased, i.e., subcrestal int

122 Thus, the implant-abutment interface dictates the intensity and location o

123 ver, the size of the microgap at the implant-abutment interface had no significant effect upon cresta

124 microgap that is present between the implant-abutment interface in dental implants.

125 n each hemimandible, positioning the implant-abutment interface in either a supracrestal (+1.5 mm), e

126 emonstrated that the geometry of the fixture-abutment interface influences the risk of bacterial inva

127 lants with a smaller diameter at the implant-abutment interface may be beneficial when multiple impla

128 suggesting that the stability of the implant/abutment interface may have an important early role to p

129 sion of oral microorganisms into the fixture-abutment interface microgap of dental implants with diff

130 sion of oral microorganisms into the fixture-abutment interface microgap under dynamic-loading condit

131 ing to a platform-switching concept (implant abutment interface with a reduced diameter relative to t

132 supracrestal, crestal, or subcrestal implant-abutment interface.

133 nced apical to the newly established implant-abutment interface.

134 event microbial invasion through the implant-abutment interface.

135 All abutment interfaces were placed 1 mm above the alveolar

136 bacterial penetration through their implant-abutment interfaces.

137 ptimal configuration of a customized implant abutment is crucial for bone remodeling and is influence

138 n 2 mm and minimizing the number of times an abutment is removed during fabrication helped preserve s

139 design with a horizontally displaced implant-abutment junction has on the height of the crest of bone

140 The horizontally displaced implant-abutment junction provided for a more coronal position o

141 orted for non-horizontally displaced implant-abutment junctions.

142 Our findings showed that the concave abutments led to a taller and more extensive layer of pr

143 can be retained between them at the implant-abutment level.

144 er also depends upon short-lived FDC network abutment, likely triggered by SCSM antigen uptake.

145 xing was done using cyanoacrylate to prevent abutment loosening.

146 MBL rates were higher for prosthetic abutment < 2 mm vs. >/= 2 mm, for periodontal vs. non-pe

147 In conclusion, concave abutments may provide better support and health for the

148 After disconnection of fixtures and abutments, microbial samples were taken from the threade

149 After disconnection of fixtures and abutments, microbial samples were taken from the threade

150 nd their related components (like crowns and abutments) might influence the development of gum proble

151 understood to what extent different implant-abutment mismatch sizes and implant-abutment connection

152 interproximal contact level, prosthetic EA, abutment mucosal height, cantilever length, and implant

153 ntact levels, greater prosthetic EA, shorter abutment mucosal height, longer cantilever length, and a

154 Sets of implants and abutments (n = 30 per group, sets of 180 implants) were

155 increased level of binding suggests that the abutment of a charged general base and a hydrophobic ste

156 and PlxnA1 in the future cuboidal cells; the abutment of ligand and receptors in adjacent domains may

157 AC with encasement of the portal confluence, abutment of the celiac axis, common hepatic and superior

158 ximately 3.1 cm x 2 cm x 2.1 cm in size with abutment of the portal vein-superior mesenteric vein con

159 tected in biofilms on crowns and overdenture abutments of dental implants that had been recovered fro

160 Abutments of different diameters (4.0 mm: 20% platform s

161 ermined MBL was related to the height of the abutments of internal conical connection implants at 6 a

162 attachment loss in natural teeth, serving as abutments of loaded bridges.

163 e location of a microgap between implant and abutment on crestal bone changes are not well understood

164 yze the influence of concave and cylindrical abutments on peri-implant soft tissue.

165 butments, abutment heights >=2 mm, and a one abutment-one time approach yielded significant reduction

166 Implementing a one abutment-one time protocol resulted in less MBL than rep

167 tched abutments placed according to the "one-abutment-one-time" protocol, with and without plasma of

168 the potential impact of biomaterials at the abutment or bone interfaces may have an influence on the

169 s of dis/reconnection of healing/provisional abutments (PAs).

170 Type C implants had an abutment placed at the time of surgery with the interfac

171 changes around customized, platform-switched abutments placed according to the "one-abutment-one-time

172 d that implants with rough surfaces can have abutments placed and be loaded occlusally as early as 6

173 were taken from the threaded portion of the abutment, plated, and allowed to culture under appropria

174 were taken from the threaded portion of the abutment, plated, and cultured under appropriate conditi

175 ithin the limitations of this study, concave abutments presented significantly greater peri-implant t

176 sible link between the design of the implant-abutment-prosthesis complex and the development of peri-

177 Furthermore, several implant-abutment-prosthesis complex factors were significantly l

178 One week after healing of abutments, rats were infected with Porphyromonas gingiva

179 to attach the denture with gold cylinders to abutment replicas.

180 interface (microgap) between the implant and abutment/restoration in 2-piece configurations.

181 interface (microgap) between the implant and abutment/restoration in 2-piece configurations.

182 Additionally, the concave abutments resulted in less inflammation and better tissu

183 malpositioned teeth, and teeth used as fixed abutments resulted in worse initial prognoses.

184 ), the peak von Mises stress (EQV stress) in abutment screw, and the bone-implant relative displaceme

185 abutments and implants were held together by abutment screws.

186 esence of bacteria; 2) with the implants and abutments separated for examination of internal surfaces

187 r portion for both abutments, though concave abutments showed lower overall intensity (concave: 1.05

188 ith increased risk of tooth loss while fixed abutment status was associated with a decreased risk of

189 outcome variable and tooth-related factors (abutment status, furcation involvement [FI], tooth mobil

190 The abutment surface analysis demonstrated a higher percenta

191 n and vascularization were assessed, and the abutment surfaces were analyzed using scanning electron

192 sbiotic biofilm that grows on implant and/or abutment surfaces.

193 Additionally, using abutments taller than 2 mm and minimizing the number of

194 e three parameters: implant placement depth, abutment taper degree, and gingival height of the titani

195 -form implant was placed 12 mm distal to the abutment teeth into the regenerated bone and was loaded

196 at how 2 different shapes of dental implant abutments (the parts that connect the implant to the cro

197 TD, defined as an exposure of the prosthetic abutment, the implant neck or the implant surface in the

198 ular intensity in the lower portion for both abutments, though concave abutments showed lower overall

199 treatment or to functionalize dental implant abutments to improve soft tissue integration.

200 Use as abutment tooth, FI degree III, tooth mobility degrees I

201 2.35 and 19.86), implant diameter (OR 3.64), abutment transmucosal height (OR 3.39), and hygiene diff

202 e commercially available Morse taper implant-abutment units tested were not sufficiently small to shi

203 porcine dermal matrix, n = 24) or B (healing abutment used as tenting screw to sustain the soft tissu

204 with pressed ceramics or on CAD/CAM zirconia abutments veneered with hand buildup technique.

205 (ICs) based either on prefabricated zirconia abutments veneered with pressed ceramics or on CAD/CAM z

206 In Case 1, the healing abutment was placed at the time of implant placement, wh

207 All implants were two-piece (an abutment was to be placed after 6 weeks of healing) and

208 Fixtures and abutments were assembled and allowed to incubate in a ba

209 r subcrestal (-1.5 mm) position, and healing abutments were connected.

210 Platform-switched abutments were correlated with reduced MBL compared to p

211 The abutments were designed with diameters of 3.5 mm (platfo

212 Implant abutments were dis/reconnected at 12, 14, 16, and 18 wee

213 Two standard abutments were either exposed to bacterial culture or le

214 Abutments were either welded (1 -piece) in groups A, B,

215 On the other side, healing abutments were exposed to the oral cavity (non-submerged

216 After implant installation, prosthetic abutments were fixed to the implants and tightened to 20

217 Abutments were placed protruding into the oral cavity 4

218 At the end of the period, the abutments were removed and the internal content of the i

219 Abutments were screwed onto the implants, and the units

220 alis was inoculated inside the implants, and abutments were tightened.

221 Additively manufactured resin abutments were used for cementation with dual-polymerisi

222 ingle crown made of a prefabricated zirconia abutment with pressed ceramic as the veneering material

223 umors of any size and less than 5 cm luminal abutment with the primary tumor were eligible.

224 An experimental abutment with the same surface and structure as a commer

225 connected to standard abutments and the same abutments with a 0.5-mm groove modification, respectivel

226 rent abutment/crown material (i.e., titanium abutments with a metal-ceramic crown and zirconia abutme

227 ents with a metal-ceramic crown and zirconia abutments with an all-ceramic zirconia crown).

228 The abutments with PEMF provided an exposure ratio of 1/500-