Customized healing abutments have been introduced in clinical practice along with implant surgery to preserve or create natural-appearing hard and soft tissue around the implant. This provides the benefits of reducing the overall treatment time by eliminating the second stage and reducing the elapsed time of the fabrication of the final prostheses. This article aims to review the types and properties of materials used for the fabrication of customized healing abutments and their clinical applications. Articles published in English on customized healing abutments were searched in Google Scholar, PubMed/MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, and the Scopus databases up to August 2022. The relevant articles were selected and included in this literature review. Customized healing abutments can be fabricated from materials available for dental implants, including PEEK, PMMA, zirconia, resin composite, and titanium. All the materials can be used following both immediate and delayed implant placement. Each material provides different mechanical and biological properties that influence the peri-implant tissues. In conclusion, the studies have demonstrated promising outcomes for all the materials. However, further investigation comparing the effects of each material on peri-implant soft and hard tissues is required.

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of customized healing abutments compared to prefabricated healing abutments in immediate implant sites. Twelve patients requiring single immediate implant placement were divided into two groups: a prefabricated group received prefabricated titanium healing abutments, and a customized group received a polyetheretherketone (PEEK) customized healing abutments fabricated based on the individuals’ digital impressions. Outcomes, including peri-implant horizontal and vertical soft tissue alteration, bone level change, volume change, pain score, and pink esthetic score (PES) change, were evaluated at the 1-, 4-, and 6-month follow-ups compared to pre-extraction teeth. At the 1- and 4-month follow-ups, the customized group had a significantly lower buccal volume variation (BVv). At the 6-month follow-up, neither group showed any significant difference in the marginal bone change; however, the customized group had a significantly lower PES change and a lower pain score. In the anterior and premolar regions, the customized group showed the preservation of peri-implant buccal horizontal soft tissue and buccal volume, while in the molar regions, the preservation of papilla height and midfacial height was observed. The morphology of the customized healing abutment demonstrated a better trend in preservation of peri-implant soft tissue, esthetic outcomes, and lower patient discomfort in immediate implant sites.