Objective    To investigate the influence of different abutment materials on soft and hard tissues around implants.    Methods     A prospective study was conducted on 75 patients with a single anterior tooth defect requiring implant repair who were admitted to our hospital from January 2019 to December 2020. The patients were randomly divided into three groups by using a random number table method, with 25 patients in each group. Different materials were used to implant and complete single crown repair, and they were divided into a pure titanium group, a zirconia group, and an alumina group. The implant retention rate, clinical periodontal indicators, implant marginal bone resorption, pink aesthetic index (PES), white aesthetic index (WES), oral health related quality of life, satisfaction, and incidence of complications among the three groups at 12 months after restoration were observed and compared.    Results    After 12 months of repair, the retention rates of implants in both the pure titanium group and the zirconia group were 100%, with no mechanical complications such as implant loosening or detachment. In the alumina group, there was one abutment fracture, with a retention rate of 96.0%. There was no significant difference in PD, SBI, and PFI among the three groups (P>0.05), while the PLI of the zirconia group was significantly lower than that of the pure titanium and alumina groups (P<0.05). The bone resorption at the implant edge in the zirconia and alumina groups was lower than that in the pure titanium group (P<0.05). There was significant differences in the pink aesthetic index among the three groups (P<0.05), with zirconia group>alumina group>pure titanium group. There was no significant difference in the white aesthetic index and the quality of life related to oral health among the three groups of patients (P>0.05). Among the three groups of patients, the satisfaction of the zirconia group was higher than that of the other two groups. There was no significant difference in the total incidence of biological complications among the three patients (P>0.05).   Conclusions   For anterior dental implant restoration, the short-term retention rate, clinical biological effects, and overall patient satisfaction of using three types of material abutments are comparable. Compared with pure titanium abutments, using zirconia and alumina abutments for implant restoration reduces bone resorption at the edges. The use of zirconia abutments has the best aesthetic effect, and patients are more satisfied with the aesthetic effect.