ArticleClinical implant dentistry and related research2025
In Vitro Analysis of Structural Integrity and Surface Alterations of Reused Healing Abutments.
Article in Clinical implant dentistry and related research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Repeated implant analog reuse effect on dimensional accuracy and marginal gap with abutments - AnBioinformation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to investigate the changes in healing abutments (HAs) after use based on an in vitro comparison with unused HAs and to evaluate the effectiveness and clinical implications of reusing HAs. MATERIALS AND
methodsFifty used HAs were collected from affiliated clinics of the Department of Dentistry at Hanyang University Hospital and analyzed for surface damage, protein contamination, and microgap formation using three-dimensional laser microscopy and microcomputed tomography. The interfacial microgap between the implant and the abutment was measured at different tightening torques (5 N·cm, 10 N·cm, and 15 N·cm). Additionally, bacterial leakage and growth at various tightening torques were assessed by incubating reused HAs over different time periods.
resultsReused HAs exhibited significant surface roughness, protein contamination, and larger microgap compared to unused HAs. The average microgap for reused HAs was 43 μm, whereas unused HAs showed no detectable gap. Bacterial leakage was significantly higher with reused HAs, particularly in those subjected to more than two tightening cycles. Tightening torques of 15 N·cm effectively eliminated the microgap and minimized bacterial leakage, whereas lower torques (5 N·cm and 10 N·cm) resulted in considerable bacterial growth.
conclusionReusing HAs increases the risk of surface damage, protein contamination, microgap formation, and bacterial leakage, potentially compromising implant treatment outcomes. Higher tightening torque, (15 N·cm) significantly reduces microgap and bacterial leakage at the implant - HA imterface. Clinicians are advised to limit the reuse of HAs. However, if reuse is necessary, an appropriate tightening torque should be applied following a careful assessment of the clinical conditions of each HA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.