Abstract
Implant supported dental prostheses are increasingly used in dental practice. The aim of this narrative review is to present the influence of transmucosal surface of prosthetic abutment and implant on peri-implant tissue. The article describes causes of bone loss around the dental implant. Moreover, properties of different materials are compared and discussed. The advantages, disadvantages, and biomechanical concept of different implant-abutment connections are presented. The location of connections in relation to the bone level and the influence of microgap between the abutment and implant are described. Additionally, the implant abutments for cemented and screwed prosthetic restorations are compared. The influence of implant and abutment surface at the transmucosal level on peri-implant soft tissue is discussed. Finally, the biological aspect of abutment-implant connection is analyzed.
Highlights
Dental implants are widely used for oral prosthetic rehabilitation in case of partially, as well as fully edentulous patients
Bone loss increased with shorter and wider implants, there were no significant differences in crestal bone loss for the tested implants regarding different diameters and lengths of implants [14,15,16]
The prevention of biological factors causing bone loss relies on regular control of infection, maintaining good oral health, implant surface decontamination, correctly performed surgical procedure, and obtaining osseointegration [24]
Summary
Dental implants are widely used for oral prosthetic rehabilitation in case of partially (single or more missing teeth), as well as fully edentulous patients. Among the absolute contraindications for dental implants are poor oral hygiene, drug abuse, psychiatric illness, and patients’ unrealistic expectations. Circulatory system diseases, diabetes, xerostomia, endocrine, and metabolic disorders (with an adequate treatment) are generally considered as relative contraindications. Relative contraindications include aged patients, as well as patients with a low quality and density of bone, with bruxism, periodontal diseases, oral carcinomas, and generally immunocompromised patients [2,3]. An individual approach to the patient allows considering the negative influence of systemic diseases on the dental implant treatment outcome [4]. Most of the implant failure was observed in patients with smoking history (37%), hypertension (20.8%), and diabetes (20.3%) [9]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
