Marginal Bone Level and Biomechanical Behavior of Titanium-Indexed Abutment Base of Conical Connection Used for Single Ceramic Crowns on Morse-Taper Implant: A Clinical Retrospective Study

The goal of this retrospective clinical study was to evaluate the behavior of Morse-taper indexed abutments by analyzing the marginal bone level (MBL) after at least 12 months of function. Patients rehabilitated with single ceramic crowns between May 2015 and December 2020 received single Morse-taper connection implants (DuoCone implant) with two-piece straight abutment baseT used for at least 12 months, presenting periapical radiograph immediately after crown installation were enrolled. The position of the rehabilitated tooth and arch (maxilla or mandible), crown installation period, implant dimensions, abutment transmucosal height, installation site (immediate implant placement or healed area), associated with bone regeneration, immediate provisionalization, and complications after installation of the final crown were analyzed. The initial and final MBL was evaluated by comparing the initial and final X-rays. The level of significance was α = 0.05. Seventy-five patients (49 women and 26 men) enrolled had a mean period of evaluation of 22.7 ± 6.2 months. Thirty-one implant-abutment (IA) sets had between 12–18 months, 34 between 19–24 months, and 44 between 25–33 months. Only one patient failed due to an abutment fracture after 25 months of function. Fifty-eight implants were placed in the maxilla (53.2%) and 51 in the mandible (46.8%). Seventy-four implants were installed in healed sites (67.9%), and 35 were in fresh socket sites (32.1%). Thirty-two out of these 35 implants placed in fresh sockets had the gap filled with bone graft particles. Twenty-six implants received immediate provisionalization. The average MBL was −0.67 ± 0.65 mm in mesial and −0.70 ± 0.63 mm in distal (p = 0.5072). The most important finding was the statistically significant difference comparing the values obtained for MBL between the abutments with different transmucosal height portions, which were better for abutments with heights greater than 2.5 mm. Regarding the abutments’ diameter, 58 had 3.5 mm (53.2%) and 51 had 4.5 mm (46.8%). There was no statistical difference between them, with the following means and standard deviation, respectively, −0.57 ± 0.53 mm (mesial) and −0.66 ± 0.50 mm (distal), and −0.78 ± 0.75 mm (mesial) and −0.746 ± 0.76 mm (distal). Regarding the implant dimensions, 24 implants were 3.5 mm (22%), and 85 implants (78%) had 4.0 mm. In length, 51 implants had 9 mm (46.8%), 25 had 11 mm (22.9%), and 33 implants were 13 mm (30.3%). There was no statistical difference between the abutment diameters (p > 0.05). Within the limitations of this study, it was possible to conclude that better behavior and lesser marginal bone loss were observed when using abutment heights greater than 2.5 mm of transmucosal portion and when placed implants with 13 mm length. Furthermore, this type of abutment showed a little incidence of failures within the period analyzed in our study.