Trial reportClinical oral implants research2026
Influence of Abutment Shape on Implant Marginal Bone Remodeling: A Double-Blind, Randomized 24-Month Clinical Study.
Trial report in Clinical oral implants research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study follows a 2-year evaluation to verify marginal bone remodeling (MBR) trends associated with different abutment designs.
methodsA balanced, randomised, double-blind clinical trial with two parallel experimental arms. 68 implants were placed in 9 men and 12 women, 48.5% using the straight abutment and 51.5% the concave abutment. The primary variable was peri-implant tissue stability, measured by marginal bone loss (MBL) or gain (MBG) through digital radiology. Mixed linear regression models and Additive Generalized Additive Models were constructed to estimate MBR, simultaneously considering the variables abutment height, group, and time.
resultsAt 24 months, linear mixed-effects regression models revealed that the concave abutment group exhibited significantly less MBL than the straight abutment group across mesial, distal, and average measurements (p = 0.006-0.026). Significant interactions between abutment type and time at 8 weeks and 6 months suggest early and sustained benefits of the concave design. At 24 months, this effect remained significant except in the mesial model (p = 0.072). Abutment height was positively associated with MBL, particularly in the straight group; however, in the concave group, greater height mitigated bone loss (p < 0.01).
conclusionConcave abutments demonstrated a potential advantage in reducing early marginal bone loss and promoting mid-term bone stability compared to straight abutments. Their design may enhance soft tissue adaptation, contributing to improved peri-implant bone preservation. While increased abutment height showed a protective effect in the concave group, these findings require confirmation. Further long-term studies are warranted to validate these results and clarify their clinical relevance.
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.