ArticleClinical oral implants research2026
Supracrestal Tissue Height Changes Around the Healing Abutment in the Posterior Region After Second-Stage Implant Surgery Measured by Intraoral Scanning: A Retrospective Study.
Article 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe study aimed to explore the changes in the height of the soft tissue around the healing abutment at different time points after second-stage implant surgery.
methodsCone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) data were collected at baseline (second-stage surgery), and intraoral scans were obtained at baseline and multiple follow-up visits: after suture removal (1 week post-surgery), during impression taking, and immediately before performing restoration. Patients were grouped based on the time of impression taking (1 or 2 weeks post-suture removal: 1I or 2I), and further subgrouped according to the timing of performing restoration (2, 3, or 4 weeks post-impression: 2R, 3R, or 4R). Digital datasets were superimposed using tooth-supported reference areas before the intraoral height of the healing abutment and the supracrestal tissue height (STH) were measured at the mesial, distal, buccal, and lingual sites at the different time periods.
resultsA total of 76 patients with 102 implants were enrolled in the study; specifically, 22 were in the 1I2R group, 18 in 1I3R, 14 in 1I4R, 14 in 2I2R, 18 in 2I3R, and 16 in 2I4R. The STH changes of 2I3R group were (0.37 ± 0.13), (0.41 ± 0.21), (0.43 ± 0.17), (0.43 ± 0.20) mm at the mesial, distal, buccal, and lingual sites, which showed no statistically significant differences with 2I4R group whose STH changes were (0.35 ± 0.13), (0.43 ± 0.22), (0.39 ± 0.16), (0.41 ± 0.14) mm, respectively. the changes of these two groups were Larger Than Other groups, with significant differences (p < 0.01).
conclusionsWithin the study limits, STH around healing abutment tended to stabilize approximately 6 weeks after second-stage surgery.
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.