A Study to Evaluate the Effectiveness of Laser-Ablated Implant-Abutments to Promote Tissue Healing

Connective tissue integration was assessed by radio graphic images of tissue and bone surrounding the implant.

A force transducing periodontal probe instrument will electronically capture the grams of force needed to disrupt the attachment to the implant abutment; tissues will be probed from the gingival margin to the alveolar bone crest at 4 points around each abutment and an adjacent tooth: measurements will be captured from the mesial, buccal, distal, and lingual. The specific force probe generates a descriptive graph that demonstrates the cumulative force and distribution necessary to disrupt the attachment of the gingival tissues to the abutment. These graphs were recorded, but were difficult to interpret and have not been reported.

A periodontal probe will be used to measure the level of clinical attachment to the abutment in millimeters. Measurements will be captured at 4 points around each abutment; mesial, buccal, distal, and lingual. All measurements were considered and the change in attachment level was assessed at each individual site. Data were reported as descriptive and were used to elucidate potential advantages and/or disadvantages of varying abutment types. These data were strictly confirmatory to the proof-in-principle histology presented in the report. Measures were taken at 8 weeks, 12 weeks, 16 weeks and 12 months to determine if attachment to one abutment type was more or less stable over time. The specific force probe generates a descriptive graph that demonstrates the cumulative force and distribution necessary to disrupt the attachment of the gingival tissues to the abutment. These graphs were recorded, but were difficult to interpret and have not been reported.

A periodontal probe will be used to measure the level of clinical attachment to the abutment in millimeters. Measurements will be captured at 4 points around each abutment; mesial, buccal, distal, and lingual. All measurements were considered and the change in attachment level was assessed at each individual site. Data were reported as descriptive and were used to elucidate potential advantages and/or disadvantages of varying abutment types. These data were strictly confirmatory to the proof-in-principle histology presented in the report. Measures were taken at 8 weeks, 12 weeks, 16 weeks and 12 months to determine if attachment to one abutment type was more or less stable over time. The specific force probe generates a descriptive graph that demonstrates the cumulative force and distribution necessary to disrupt the attachment of the gingival tissues to the abutment. These graphs were recorded, but were difficult to interpret and have not been reported.

A periodontal probe will be used to measure the level of clinical attachment to the abutment in millimeters. Measurements will be captured at 4 points around each abutment; mesial, buccal, distal, and lingual. All measurements were considered and the change in attachment level was assessed at each individual site. Data were reported as descriptive and were used to elucidate potential advantages and/or disadvantages of varying abutment types. These data were strictly confirmatory to the proof-in-principle histology presented in the report. Measures were taken at 8 weeks, 12 weeks, 16 weeks and 12 months to determine if attachment to one abutment type was more or less stable over time. The specific force probe generates a descriptive graph that demonstrates the cumulative force and distribution necessary to disrupt the attachment of the gingival tissues to the abutment. These graphs were recorded, but were difficult to interpret and have not been reported.

A periodontal probe will be used to measure the level of clinical attachment to the abutment in millimeters. Measurements will be captured at 4 points around each abutment; mesial, buccal, distal, and lingual. All measurements were considered and the change in attachment level was assessed at each individual site. Data were reported as descriptive and were used to elucidate potential advantages and/or disadvantages of varying abutment types. These data were strictly confirmatory to the proof-in-principle histology presented in the report. Measures were taken at 8 weeks, 12 weeks, 16 weeks and 12 months to determine if attachment to one abutment type was more or less stable over time. The specific force probe generates a descriptive graph that demonstrates the cumulative force and distribution necessary to disrupt the attachment of the gingival tissues to the abutment. These graphs were recorded, but were difficult to interpret and have not been reported.