In this systematic review, we aimed to compare conical versus nonconical implant-abutment connection systems in terms of their in vitro and in vivo performances. An electronic search was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Medline databases with the logical operators: "dental implant" AND "dental abutment" AND ("conical" OR "taper" OR "cone"). Names of the most common conical implant-abutment connection systems were used as additional key words to detect further data. The search was limited to articles published up to November 2012. Recent publications were also searched manually in order to find any relevant studies that might have been missed using the search criteria noted above. Fifty-two studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review. As the data and methods, as well as types of implants used was so heterogeneous, this mitigated against the performance of meta-analysis. In vitro studies indicated that conical and nonconical abutments showed sufficient resistance to maximal bending forces and fatigue loading. However, conical abutments showed superiority in terms of seal performance, microgap formation, torque maintenance, and abutment stability. In vivo studies (human and animal) indicated that conical and nonconical systems are comparable in terms of implant success and survival rates with less marginal bone loss around conical connection implants in most cases. This review indicates that implant systems using a conical implant-abutment connection, provides better results in terms of abutment fit, stability, and seal performance. These design features could lead to improvements over time versus nonconical connection systems.

Biofunctionalization of the implant surface with a biomimetic active peptide leads to significantly increased BIC rates at 14 and 30 days and higher peri-implant bone density at 30 days.

Aim: To evaluate and compare the microbiological effects of hand instruments, Er:YAG‐laser, sonic, and ultrasonic scalers in patients with chronic periodontitis. Patient perception of each treatment was documented. Material and Methods: From 72 patients, bacterial samples were collected from the deepest pocket in each quadrant (total: 288 sites). A polymerase chain reaction kit estimated the amount of Aggregatibacter (Actinobacillus) actinomycetemcomitans (Aa), Porphyromonas gingivalis (Pg), Prevotella intermedia (Pi), Tannerella forsythensis (Tf), and Treponema denticola (Td) at baseline as well as 3 and 6 months after therapy. One quadrant in each patient was randomly assigned to curettes (H‐group), Er:YAG laser (L‐group), sonic device (S‐group), or ultrasonic device (U‐group). Results: Three months post‐operatively, the amounts of Pg, Pi, Tf, and Td were significantly reduced in all groups. Laser and sonic instrumentation failed to reduce Aa. Six months after therapy, significant differences were still detected for Pg (L‐ and U‐group), for Pi and Tf (S‐group), and for Td (L‐, S‐ and U‐group). Patients rated ultrasonic treatment as more preferable than hand and laser instrumentation. Conclusion: The various treatment methods resulted in a comparable reduction of the evaluated periodontal pathogens, and bacterial increase was only partially different 6 months post‐operatively. Ultrasonic instrumentation caused less discomfort.

This assignment applies to all translations of the Work as well as to preliminary display/posting of the abstract of the accepted article in electronic form before publication. If any changes in authorship (order, deletions, or additions) occur after the manuscript is submitted, agreement by all authors for such changes must be on file with the Publisher. An author's name may be removed only at his/her written request. (Note: Material prepared by employees of the US government in the course of their official duties cannot be copyrighted.

This assignment applies to all translations of the Work as well as to preliminary display/posting of the abstract of the accepted article in electronic form before publication. If any changes in authorship (order, deletions, or additions) occur after the manuscript is submitted, agreement by all authors for such changes must be on file with the Publisher. An author's name may be removed only at his/her written request. (Note: Material prepared by employees of the US government in the course of their official duties cannot be copyrighted.