Dataset Information

One-time versus repeated abutment connection for platform-switched implant: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

This review aims to compare peri-implant tissue changes in terms of clinical and radiographic aspects of implant restoration protocol using one-time abutment to repeated abutment connection in platform switched implant.

Method

A structured search strategy was applied to three electronic databases, namely, Pubmed, Embase and Web of Science. Eight eligible studies, including seven randomised controlled studies and one controlled clinical study, were identified in accordance with inclusion/exclusion criteria. Outcome measures included peri-implant bone changes (mm), peri-implant soft tissue changes (mm), probing depth (mm) and postsurgical complications.

Result

Six studies were pooled for meta-analysis on bone tissue, three for soft tissue, two for probing depth and four for postsurgical complications. A total of 197 implants were placed in one-time abutment group, whereas 214 implants were included in repeated abutment group. The implant systems included Global implants, Ankylos, JDEvolution (JdentalCare), Straumann Bone level and Conelog-Screwline. One-time abutment group showed significantly better outcomes than repeated abutment group, as measured in the standardised differences in mean values (fixed- and random-effect model): vertical bone change (0.41, 3.23) in 6 months, (1.51, 14.81) in 12 months and (2.47, 2.47) in 3 years and soft tissue change (0.21, 0.23). No significant difference was observed in terms of probing depth and complications.

Conclusion

Our meta-analysis revealed that implant restoration protocol using one-time abutment is superior to repeated abutment for platform switched implant because of less bone resorption and soft tissue shifts in former. However, future randomised clinical trials should be conducted to further confirm these findings because of the small samples and the limited quality of the original research.

SUBMITTER: Wang QQ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5648164 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

One-time versus repeated abutment connection for platform-switched implant: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Wang Qing-Qing QQ Dai Ruoxi R Cao Chris Ying CY Fang Hui H Han Min M Li Quan-Li QL

PloS one 20171019 10

<h4>Objective</h4>This review aims to compare peri-implant tissue changes in terms of clinical and radiographic aspects of implant restoration protocol using one-time abutment to repeated abutment connection in platform switched implant.<h4>Method</h4>A structured search strategy was applied to three electronic databases, namely, Pubmed, Embase and Web of Science. Eight eligible studies, including seven randomised controlled studies and one controlled clinical study, were identified in accordanc ...[more]

PMID: 29049323

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo compare short-term outcomes after immediate restoration of a single implant in the esthetic zone with one-abutment one-time technique comparing a conventional (control) vs. a fully digital workflow (test).Materials and methodsEighteen subjects were randomly assigned to the two groups, and a digital implant planning was performed for all. In the test group, a custom-made zirconia abutment and a CAD-CAM provisional crown were prepared prior to surgery; implants were placed using a s-CAIS guide allowing immediate restoration after surgery. In the control group, the implant was placed free-handed using a conventional surgical guide, and a custom-made zirconia abutment to support a stratified provisional crown was placed 10 days thereafter, based on a conventional impression. Implant accuracy (relative to the planning), the provisional restoration outcomes, as well as PROMs were assessed.ResultsThe implant positioning showed higher accuracy with the s-CAIS surgical guide compared to free-handed surgery (angular deviation (AD): 2.41 ± 1.27° vs. 6.26 ± 3.98°, p < 0.014; entry point deviation (CGD): 0.65 ± 0.37 mm vs. 1.27 ± 0.83 mm, p < 0.059; apical deviation (GAD): 1.36 ± 0.53 mm vs. 2.42 ± 1.02 mm, p < 0.014). The occlusion and interproximal contacts showed similar results for the two workflows (p = 0.7 and p = 0.69, respectively). The PROMs results were similar in both groups except for impression taking with intra-oral scanning preferred over conventional impressions (p = 0.014).ConclusionsBoth workflows allowed implant placement and immediate/early restoration and displayed similar clinical and esthetic outcomes. The fully digital workflow was associated with a more accurate implant position relative to planning.Clinical relevanceOur results show that both conventional and digital workflow are predictive and provide similar clinical outcomes, with extra precision provided by digitalisation.

Dataset Information

One-time versus repeated abutment connection for platform-switched implant: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective

Method

Result

Conclusion

Publications

One-time versus repeated abutment connection for platform-switched implant: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets