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.

Metals subjected to the oral environment are prone to corrosion over time and this can be harmful. Metallic restoration components such as dental subgingival implant abutments are exposed to pH changes and different ions while in contact with saliva. The aim of the study was to evaluate the corrosion resistance of titanium dental implant abutments and to compare and contrast the surface characteristics of these alloys before and after corrosion. The corrosion examination (E_corr, j_corr, OCP, polarization curve) of two implant abutments (TiDesign EV, Astra Tech, Dentsply, York, PA, USA; Individual Titanium Abutment, Apollo Implants Components, Pabianice, Poland) was performed in 0.9% NaCl and 5% HCl. Moreover, specimens were investigated using SEM-EDS before and after the corrosion test. The value of j_corr in NaCl was higher for Astra (34.2 × 10⁻⁸ ± 2.5 × 10⁻⁸ A/cm²) than for Apollo (8.8 × 10⁻⁸ ± 2.5 × 10⁻⁸ A/cm²). Whereas, in HCl, the opposite relationship was observed (Astra 2.9 × 10⁻⁴ ± 0.8 × 10⁻⁴ A/cm² and Apollo 62.7 × 10⁻⁴ ± 9.3 × 10⁻⁴ A/cm²). An average reactive anodic current density in NaCl for Astra amounted up to ~0.2 × 10⁻⁵–1.5 × 10⁻⁵ A/cm², while for Apollo-up to ~3.3–9.7 × 10⁻⁷ A/cm². The composition of both alloys after corrosion in NaCl demonstrated some changes: a decrease in the Ti, and Al and an increase in oxygen content. Hence, both alloys after corrosion in HCl demonstrated some minor changes in the elemental composition. Based on the results it can be concluded that: 1. Astra and Apollo abutments revealed good corrosion resistance and a passivation layer on the surface. 2. Apollo abutments exhibited better corrosion resistance in a neutral environment, suggesting that Astra abutments were found to be more resistant to corrosion in an acidic medium.

The assessment of microgaps at the implant–abutment interface is an important factor that may influence clinical success. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the size of microgaps between prefabricated and customised abutments (Astra Tech, Dentsply, York, PA, USA; Apollo Implants Components, Pabianice, Poland) mounted on a standard implant. The measurement of the microgap was performed using micro-computed tomography (MCT). Due to 15-degree rotation of samples, 24 microsections were obtained. Scans were performed at four levels established at the interface between the abutment and the implant neck. Moreover, the volume of the microgap was evaluated. The size of the microgap at all measured levels varied from 0.1 to 3.7 µm for Astra and from 0.1 to 4.9 µm for Apollo (p > 0.05). Moreover, 90% of the Astra specimens and 70% of the Apollo specimens did not exhibit any microgaps. The highest mean values of microgap size for both groups were detected at the lowest portion of the abutment (p > 0.05). Additionally, the average microgap volume was greater for Apollo than for Astra (p > 0.05). It can be concluded that most samples did not exhibit any microgaps. Furthermore, the linear and volumetric dimensions of microgaps observed at the interface between Apollo or Astra abutments and Astra implants were comparable. Additionally, all tested components presented microgaps (if any) that were clinically acceptable. However, the microgap size of the Apollo abutment was higher and more variable than that of the Astra one.