The biological complication of implant abutment materials. A systematic review and meta-analysis


Published: 2 March 2018
Abstract Views: 1335
pdf: 1357
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Authors

  • M. A. Mokhtar Department of fixed prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, MSA University, Eygpt, Egypt.
  • G. Elnagar Department of fixed prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Egypt, Egypt.
  • M. Saleh Department of fixed prosthodontics, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Hodeidah University, Yemen, Yemen.
  • M. M. Radwan Department of fixed prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Beni-suef University, Egypt, Egypt.

Aim The goal of this review was to identify the biological complication of implant abutment materials in relation to alveolar bone around implant-supported superstructure.

Methodology An electronic database search and a further  manual search were directed to select RCTs, and cohort studies that give evidence about different abutment materials complication. Pocket depth, amount of rescission and crestal bone loss were attributed to alveolar bone loss.

Results Fourteen clinical studies were selected from an initial search of 107 studies and the extraction of the analysis data were tabled according to complication output. Pocket probing depth were documented in eight studies, PPD around Zirconium implant abutments was 3.2 mm versus 3.4 mm for Titanium abutments. Five studies examined the recession index for Zirconium and Titanium implant abutments. The RI ranged from 0 to 0.4 at Titanium implant abutments and 0 to 0.3 at Zirconium implant abutments. Alveolar bone loss around Zirconia abutments was reported to differ from 0.2-1.48 mm and 0.3-1.43mm at Titanium abutments.

Conclusion The data reported in this systematic review did not give an evidence for the complication regarding all ceramic versus metallic implant abutment. However, it can be concluded that the assessment of the randomized clinical trials did not provide an absolute decision for the choice of ceramic or metallic as implant abutment material in relation to alveolar bone response. The meta-analysis presented a statistically significant difference between abutment material with superiority for the all ceramic abutments over metallic abutment providing a favorable response of Marginal Bone Loss, but non-statistically significant regarding Pocket Probing Depth and Recession Index of soft tissue.


Mokhtar, M. A., Elnagar, G., Saleh, M., & Radwan, M. M. (2018). The biological complication of implant abutment materials. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Osseointegration, 10(1), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.23805/jo.2018.10.01.04

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Citations