#Implantology 22. May 2026

Abutment–crown retention: understanding the role (and risks) of surface treatment

What is this about?

  • Why abutment–crown retention is essential for long-term implant stability and restorative success.
  • How surface treatment influences bonding, cement performance, and interface integrity.
  • Why controlled, manufacturer-applied microtexturing may offer safer and more predictable outcomes than in-lab sandblasting.

Overview

Secure abutment–crown retention is critical to long-term implant success, and while design and cement choice matter, evidence shows that surface characteristics is often the deciding factor. Although in-lab sandblasting is widely used to improve micro-mechanical retention, it can cause well-documented clinical and occupational risks. Studies also demonstrate that increasing roughness beyond a certain threshold does not improve retention and may even weaken it. In contrast, manufacturer-applied microtexturing provides predictable, validated, and safer surface preparation, producing consistent microtopography without compromising component integrity or occupational safety. Prioritising these controlled treatments supports cleaner workflows, stronger and more reliable bonding, and improved long-term clinical stability.

One of the most fundamental factors behind a dental implant’s long-term success is secure and tight retention between the abutment and the crown. While a stable connection ensures optimal functionality, predictable load transfer, and patient comfort, poor retention remains one of the leading technical drivers of implant failure (1), (2), (3).

Optimal abutment-to-crown retention is dependent on multiple factors, including abutment design/geometry, surface condition, and cement type. While these parameters are often discussed individually, they interact in subtle ways that can influence long-term outcomes. For instance, once a bonding interface is contaminated, even an ideal abutment design remains problematic (4). Alternatively, a rougher abutment finish may sometimes lead to uneven cement application, compromising bond strength, seating accuracy, and marginal integrity (5), (6).

Key factors influencing abutment-crown retention

Over the years, various strategies have been explored to improve retention, focusing on structural design, cement formulation, and surface modification. Key developments have included:

  • Adaptations in abutment structure – A taller abutment with minimal taper offers an increased surface area for bonding (7). Clinical positioning can, however, limit dimensions, particularly in cases with restricted interocclusal space.
  • Improved compounds – Research suggests that resin-based cements provide higher retention rates than zinc phosphate or glass ionomer-type cements (8). In controlled studies, resin cements provide superior mechanical strength, more than three times greater than that of glass ionomer and ten times higher than zinc (9). However, resin-based compounds are not an ideal solution across all restoration scenarios, particularly when moisture control remains inadequate.

While abutment structure and compound selection contribute to improved retention, the micro- and macro topography of the abutment surface is often the decisive factor in achieving predictable and durable crown retention. (10)

Methods to enhance retention

Several methods are used to improve the surface area of an abutment, including the following:

  • Manufacturer-applied surface treatments
  • Chemical etching
  • Silanization for zirconia

Fig. 1: An example of an abutment with a manufacturer-applied surface treatment, Straumann® Variobase® XC, with its patent-pending laser-treated surface, offers sufficient abutment-to-crown retention, negating the need to sandblast.

Perhaps the most commonly used method to enhance retention is in-lab sandblasting [TH1] (also known as air abrasion). During this process, ceramic particles, such as aluminium oxide, titanium oxide, or silica particles, are blasted at high velocity onto the abutment surface. The rationale is simple: the rougher the surface area, the higher the micromechanical retention of cement. While the intention is sound, these procedures can pose clinical and occupational risks.

Chairside sandblasting: common practice, hidden risks

While sandblasting can help improve short-term abutment-to-crown retention, it comes with technical, mechanical, and occupational risks that must be considered:

  • The process of sandblasting can change the protective titanium-oxide layer on the abutment. This facilitates bacterial adhesion and colonization, increasing the risk of contamination. (11)
  • Particles from the blasting material, such as alumina, can also become embedded in the surface, making it harder for cement to adhere properly. (12), (13).
  • Overly aggressive sandblasting can create pits or divots, which can mean more cement is applied than normal. Overly thick cement can distort under load, cause improper abutment seating, or shrink during polymerization (a chemical process necessary for bonding). The latter can cause large microgaps that allow bacteria to enter (14).
  • In zirconia abutments, sandblasting can create tiny cracks that reduce strength and make fractures more likely. (15), (16).
  • It can also trigger subtle changes in the material over time, and the high-speed impact can leave residual stresses that make the abutment more fragile.
  • Finally, inconsistent technique, such as excessive blasting or incorrect angulation, can further elevate these risks. (17)

Overall, sandblasting may enhance short-term retention; however, the evidence indicates that it can compromise surface integrity, material stability, and interface precision—potentially increasing the risk of microgap formation, bacterial contamination, and long-term mechanical complications.

Evidence and clinical guidance

Studies suggest that rougher is not always better. Reports evaluating abutment-to-crown retention agree that beyond a certain threshold of surface roughness, preservation does not linearly increase, and may, in fact, be weakened (17), (18). Taken together, these findings suggest an important clinical reality: controlled, validated surface preparation provides the most predictable outcomes.

Why controlled, manufacturer-approved treatments are safer and better for patients.

Validated surface modifications can improve abutment-to-crown retention while maintaining longevity, compatibility, and structural integrity. Manufacturer-prepared abutments are microtextured under carefully regulated industrial conditions, ensuring a consistent microtopography without compromising safety.

Fig. 2: A close-up view of the patent-pending laser-treated surface on Straumann® Variobase® XC.

Recent Straumann® developments introduced a proprietary laser-textured surface for the Variobase® XC for the Straumann iEXCEL™ system to enhance retention under controlled manufacturing conditions. This precision treatment creates a reproducible microtopography without altering the abutment’s geometry or material properties. Unlike conventional in-lab sandblasting, it is fully standardized, reducing variability, contamination risk, and the chance of structural compromise. Mechanical testing has shown significantly higher retention force, with laser-treated surfaces achieving up to 143% greater pull-out force values than untreated controls. (19) These advantages support more stable and predictable restorative outcomes, especially in demanding clinical situations, while preserving component integrity and system compatibility. Such precision-controlled surfaces provide consistent roughness and chemical stability while avoiding the dust and uncontrolled abrasion associated with in-lab modifications.

By following approved protocols and avoiding excessive or unregulated surface modification, clinicians can better preserve mechanical integrity, surface chemistry, and long-term biocompatibility. In practice, prioritizing manufacturer-applied surface treatments over in-lab sandblasting supports cleaner workflows, more stable restorations, and better patient outcomes.

Key takeaways

  • Surface roughness can improve retention, but excessive or uncontrolled roughening may compromise strength, fit, and cleanliness.
  • In-lab sandblasting carries clinical and occupational risks, including contamination, embedded particles, microcracks, and technique variability.
  • Validated manufacturer-applied surface treatments support more consistent bonding, cleaner workflows, and long-term restorative stability.
References
  1. Goodacre CJ, Bernal G, Rungcharassaeng K, Kan JYK. Clinical complications with implants and implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;90(2):121-132.
  2. Younes IA, Able FB, de Moraes KC, Sartori IAM. Survival rate of implants and mechanical complications for 64 implant-supported complete-arch prostheses in maxillary edentulous patients with a follow-up of up to 12 years: a cross-sectional analytical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2024;39(6):823-828.
  3. Michalakis KX, Hirayama H, Garefis PD. Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: a critical review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003;18(5):719-728.
  4. Maleki HB, Bazooband A, Behboudi E, et al. The effects of laboratory contamination of implant abutment screw and connection on reverse torque value: an in vitro study. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2025;11(5):e70222.
  5. Haas L, Güth JF, Krennmair S, Stimmelmayr M, Edelhoff D, Schweiger J. Influence of different cements on bonding efficiency between implant abutment and standard restoration. Int J Prosthodont. 2025;38(5):535-537.
  6. Amini P, Sanayei M, Fathi A, Khaledi AAR. Evaluation of the effect of surface roughness and modification of implant abutment axial wall on the retention of zirconium oxide copings before and after thermocycling. J Clin Exp Dent. 2024;16(4):e399-e405.
  7. Meshramkar R, Nadiger R, Nayak A, Kavlekar A, Krishnapillai L. A study to evaluate the effect of taper on retention of straight and angled implant abutment. J Dent Implants. 2015;5(1):3-5.
  8. Patel P, Sethuraman R, Prajapati P, Patel JR. Comparing the effect of a resin based sealer on crown retention for three types of cements: an in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2013;13(3):308-314.
  9. Ajay R, Suma K, Ali SA, et al. Effect of surface modifications on the retention of cement-retained implant crowns under fatigue loads: an in vitro study. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2017;9(Suppl 1):S154-S160.
  10. Pérez Tchinda A, Pierson G, Kouitat-Njiwa R, Bravetti P. The surface conditions and composition of titanium alloys in implantology: a comparative study of dental implants of different brands. Materials (Basel). 2022;15(3):1018.
  11. Tammam R. Effect of sandblasting of zirconia abutment on surface roughness and bacterial adhesion. Egypt Dent J. 2017;63(2):1827-1831.
  12. Ciobotaru IA, Stoicanescu M, Budei R, Cojocaru A, Vaireanu DI. Considerations regarding sandblasting of Ti and Ti6Al4V used in dental implants and abutments as a preconditioning stage for restorative dentistry works. Appl Sci. 2024;14(16):7365
  13. Abu-Obaid A. Effects of cementation technique and cement thickness on the retention and amount of excess cement in implant-supported restorations. Saudi Dent J. 2024;36(9):1203-1208.
  14. Passos SP, Linke B, Major PW, Nychka JA. The effect of air-abrasion and heat treatment on the fracture behavior of Y-TZP. Dent Mater. 2015;31(9):1011-1021.
  15. Hallmann L, Ulmer P, Wille S, Polonskyi O, Köbel S, Trottenberg T, et al. Effect of surface treatments on the properties and morphological change of dental zirconia. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;115(3):341-349.
  16. Finger C, Stiesch M, Eisenburger M, Breidenstein B, Busemann S, Greuling A. Effect of sandblasting on the surface roughness and residual stress of 3Y-TZP zirconia. SN Appl Sci. 2020;2:1700.
  17. Reddy SV, Reddy SV, Reddy NR, Dinapadu S, Reddy M, Pasari S. The influence of implant abutment surface roughness and the type of cement on retention of implant supported crowns. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015;9(3):ZC05-ZC07.
  18. Kim HK, Yoo KW, Kim SJ, Jung CH. Phase transformations and subsurface changes in three dental zirconia grades after sandblasting with various Al2O3 particle sizes. Materials (Basel). 2021;14(18):5321.
  19. Straumann. Data on file.