The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The mucosal barrier at implant abutments of different materials
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to analyze the soft tissue barrier formed to implant abutments made of different materials. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Six Labrador dogs, about 1 year old, were used. All mandibular premolars and the first, second and third maxillary premolars were extracted. Three months later four implants (OsseoSpeed, 4.5 x 9 mm, Astra Tech Dental, Mölndal, Sweden) were placed in the edentulous premolar region on one side of the mandible and healing abutments were connected. One month later, the healing abutments were disconnected and four new abutments were placed in a randomized order. Two of the abutments were made of titanium (Ti), while the remaining abutments were made of ZrO(2) or AuPt-alloy. A 5-months plaque control program was initiated. Three months after implant surgery, the implant installation procedure and the subsequent abutment shift were repeated in the contra-lateral mandibular region. Two months later, the dogs were euthanized and biopsies containing the implant and the surrounding soft and hard peri-implant tissues were collected and prepared for histological analysis. RESULTS: It was demonstrated that the soft tissue dimensions at Ti- and ZrO(2) abutments remained stable between 2 and 5 months of healing. At Au/Pt-alloy abutment sites, however, an apical shift of the barrier epithelium and the marginal bone occurred between 2 and 5 months of healing. In addition, the 80-mum-wide connective tissue zone lateral to the Au/Pt-alloy abutments contained lower amounts of collagen and fibroblasts and larger fractions of leukocytes than the corresponding connective tissue zone of abutments made of Ti and ZrO(2). CONCLUSION: It is suggested that the soft tissue healing to abutments made of titanium and ZrO(2) is different to that at abutments made of AuPt-alloy.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Zirconia dental implants: where are we now, and where are we heading?
Cionca, N., Hashim, D., & Mombelli, A. (2017) · Periodontology 2000 · doi:10.1111/prd.12180 · Cited by 300
Influence of Dental Prosthesis and Restorative Materials Interface on Oral Biofilms
Hao, Y., Huang, X., Zhou, X., Li, M., Ren, B., Peng, X., & Cheng, L. (2018) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms19103157 · Cited by 199
The biological width around implant
Zheng, Z., Ao, X., Xie, P., Jiang, F., & Chen, W. (2021) · Journal of Prosthodontic Research · doi:10.2186/jpr.jpor_2019_356 · Cited by 84
Monteiro, D. R., de Souza Batista, V. E., Caldeirão, A. C. M., Jacinto, R. D. C., & Pessan, J. P. (2021) · Biofouling · doi:10.1080/08927014.2021.1912741 · Cited by 32
Saravanakumar, P., Thallam veeravalli, P., Kumar V, A., Mohamed, K., Mani, U., Grover, M., & Thirumalai Thangarajan, S. (2017) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.1361 · Cited by 20
Metadata
- Authors
- Welander, M., Abrahamsson, I., & Berglundh, T.
- Venue
- Clinical Oral Implants Research
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-07
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 635-641
- ISSN
- 0905-7161 (ISSN-L)
- 1600-0501
- OpenAlex
- W2020099535
- Cited by
- 293
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 9.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The mucosal barrier at implant abutments of different materials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01543.x
- The paper
- Welander, M., Abrahamsson, I., & Berglundh, T. (2008). The mucosal barrier at implant abutments of different materials. Clinical Oral Implants Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01543.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.