Momen A Atieh1,2, Andrew Tawse-Smith1,2, Nabeel H M Alsabeeha3, Sunyoung Ma1, Warwick J Duncan1,2. 1. Oral Implantology Research Group, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. 2. Department of Oral Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Otago. 3. Prosthetic Section, Ras Al-Khaimah Dental Center, Ministry of Health, Ras Al-Khaimah, United Arab Emirates.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of definitive abutments (DAs) at time of implant placement has been introduced to overcome limitations of dis/reconnection of healing/provisional abutments (PAs). With little and inconsistent information in the literature regarding the effectiveness of using DAs, the aim of this systematic review is to examine marginal bone and soft tissue level changes, technical and biologic complications, and implant failure rate associated with use of DAs and PAs. METHODS: This systematic review was prepared according to guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and online trial registers were searched for studies comparing use of DAs and PAs. The Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool was used to assess selected studies, and meta-analyses were performed using statistical software. RESULTS: A total of 1,124 citations were identified. Of these, seven trials with 363 dental implants in 262 participants were included in the analysis. Pooled estimates for marginal bone level changes showed significant differences between the two prosthetic techniques in favor of using DAs. No significant differences were found in soft tissue level changes, technical and biologic complications, or implant failure rate. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this review, DAs appear to be a viable alternative to PAs at time of implant placement. However, favorable changes in peri-implant marginal bone level associated with use of DAs should be viewed with caution as its clinical significance is still uncertain.
BACKGROUND: The use of definitive abutments (DAs) at time of implant placement has been introduced to overcome limitations of dis/reconnection of healing/provisional abutments (PAs). With little and inconsistent information in the literature regarding the effectiveness of using DAs, the aim of this systematic review is to examine marginal bone and soft tissue level changes, technical and biologic complications, and implant failure rate associated with use of DAs and PAs. METHODS: This systematic review was prepared according to guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and online trial registers were searched for studies comparing use of DAs and PAs. The Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool was used to assess selected studies, and meta-analyses were performed using statistical software. RESULTS: A total of 1,124 citations were identified. Of these, seven trials with 363 dental implants in 262 participants were included in the analysis. Pooled estimates for marginal bone level changes showed significant differences between the two prosthetic techniques in favor of using DAs. No significant differences were found in soft tissue level changes, technical and biologic complications, or implant failure rate. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this review, DAs appear to be a viable alternative to PAs at time of implant placement. However, favorable changes in peri-implant marginal bone level associated with use of DAs should be viewed with caution as its clinical significance is still uncertain.
Entities:
Keywords:
Dental abutments; dental implants; dental implant–abutment design; meta-analysis as topic; review literature as topic