Tehran University of Medical Sciences

Science Communicator Platform

Stay connected! Follow us on X network (Twitter):
Share this content! On (X network) By
Comparison of Peri-Implant Clinical Outcomes of Digitally Customized and Prefabricated Abutments: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Publisher Pubmed



Raee A1 ; Alikhasi M2 ; Nowzari H3 ; Djalalinia S4 ; Khoshkam V5 ; Moslemi N1
Authors
Show Affiliations
Authors Affiliations
  1. 1. Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  2. 2. Dental Research Center, Dentistry Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  3. 3. Private Practice, Beverly Hills, CA, United States
  4. 4. Deputy of Research and Technology and Non-Communicable Diseases Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Population Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  5. 5. Private Practice, El Paso, TX, United States

Source: Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research Published:2021


Abstract

Background: Digitally customized abutments are increasingly used in contemporary implant prosthodontics. Purpose: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at comparing the peri-implant clinical outcomes of digitally customized and prefabricated abutments. Materials and methods: The search strategies included electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane clinical trials database) and related journals up to September, 2020. A qualitative and quantitative synthesis was performed on data extracted from the included studies. Results: Three RCTs (number of patients = 120; number of dental implants = 120) and two prospective cohort studies (number of patients = 144; number of dental implants = 144) with one to three-year follow-up periods were included. The quantitative analyses did not demonstrate a significant difference between digitally customized and prefabricated abutments for peri-implant pocket depth (P = 0.62), plaque index (P = 0.67), bleeding on probing (P = 0.43), keratinized mucosa width (P = 0.75), and pink aesthetic score (P = 0.30) at one-year follow-up visit. The qualitative analyses for marginal bone level change, calculus accumulation, implant survival rate, implant success rate, white aesthetic score, and patient-reported outcomes did not demonstrate a significant difference between two groups during 1 to 3-year follow-up visits. Conclusion: The current data do not provide evidence of significant differences between two abutment fabrication methods in terms of peri-implant clinical outcomes within short-term period (CRD42020170807). © 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Experts (# of related papers)
Other Related Docs
20. Dental Implant Quality Registries and Databases: A Systematic Review, Journal of Education and Health Promotion (2021)