A randomized trial on the aesthetic outcomes of implant‐supported restorations with zirconia or titanium abutments

Abstract

The use of zirconia abutments demonstrated a tendency towards better aesthetic outcomes although the differences were not statistically significant. However, more technical complications were noted with the use of zirconia abutments.

Biological effect of the abutment material on the stability of peri‐implant marginal bone levels: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…Two other studies assessed the thickness above the bone crest before to implant placement using a calliper (Ferrari et al, The height of the interproximal papilla was assessed by means of the Jemt index (Jemt, 1997) in nine investigations (Baldini et al 2016;Brown & Payne, 2011;Cardaropoli et al, 2006;Carrillo de Albornoz et al, 2014;Fenner et al, 2016;Henriksson & Jemt, 2003;Santing et al, 2013;Thoma et al, 2016;Zembic et al, 2013), or by measuring this papilla height in study casts in one study (Gallucci et al, 2011). The comparisons among the different abutment materials have rendered heterogeneous results, with one study reporting higher papilla index for titanium when comparing to zirconia abutments (Baldini et al 2016), vs. another study reporting exactly the opposite (Carrillo de Albornoz et al, 2014), or other one reporting no differences irrespective of the abutment material (Zembic et al, 2013). The comparisons among the different abutment materials have rendered heterogeneous results, with one study reporting higher papilla index for titanium when comparing to zirconia abutments (Baldini et al 2016), vs. another study reporting exactly the opposite (Carrillo de Albornoz et al, 2014), or other one reporting no differences irrespective of the abutment material (Zembic et al, 2013).…”

“…The patient's aesthetic perception was evaluated by means of a visual analogue scale (VAS) in six studies (Baldini et al 2016;Carrillo de Albornoz et al, 2014;Fenner et al, 2016;Hosseini et al, 2011;Nilsson et al, 2017;Schepke et al, 2017) and by means of a questionnaire in four (Hosseini et al, 2013;Santing et al, 2013;Vanlioglu et al, 2012;Wannfors & Smedberg, 1999). The patient's aesthetic perception was evaluated by means of a visual analogue scale (VAS) in six studies (Baldini et al 2016;Carrillo de Albornoz et al, 2014;Fenner et al, 2016;Hosseini et al, 2011;Nilsson et al, 2017;Schepke et al, 2017) and by means of a questionnaire in four (Hosseini et al, 2013;Santing et al, 2013;Vanlioglu et al, 2012;Wannfors & Smedberg, 1999).…”

“…evaluation of the peri-implant soft tissues (changes in the position of the mucosal margin, changes in the width of the keratinized mucosa, changes in the thickness of the mucosa or the height of the papilla) was scarcely carried out and was very heterogeneous, so no meta-analysis was performed. When comparing different abutment materials, minimal or no changes were observed in five studies(Andersson et al 2001;Andersson et al, 2003;Carrillo de Albornoz et al, 2014;Schepke et al, 2017;Zembic et al, 2013), with only in one study, the titanium F I G U R E 2 Forest plot for the changes in marginal bone levels for the different abutment materials compared to titanium When comparing different abutment materials, minimal or no changes were observed in five studies(Andersson et al 2001;Andersson et al, 2003;Carrillo de Albornoz et al, 2014;Schepke et al, 2017;Zembic et al, 2013), with only in one study, the titanium F I G U R E 2 Forest plot for the changes in marginal bone levels for the different abutment materials compared to titanium…”

Titanium-Reinforced Zirconia Abutments Versus Pure Zirconia Abutments for Implant-Supported Single Tooth Restorations: A Systematic Review.

“…However, this lack of RCTs could be attributed to the narrow scope of the review, since RCTs were found comparing other types of implant abutments. Baldini et al (23) ; Cosgarea et al (24) ; Carrillo de Albornoz et al (25) ; Ferrari et al (26), (27) ; Sailer et al (28) ; Zembic et al (29), (30) , compared different types of titanium abutments versus zirconia; while others compared between the different types of zirconia abutments: Büchi et al (31) and Thoma et al (32) compared the veneered zirconia versus white zirconia; Paolantoni et al (33) compared one-piece versus two-piece custom made zirconia anchorages and final prosthetic restoration; and Schepke et al (34) reported the comparison between stock versus customized zirconia.…”

Zirconia ceramics in metal-free implant dentistry

“…Rosentritt et al [61] suggested that sufficiently high torque moments and early re-screwing in a clinical context be used to reduce the microgap and risk of screw loosening. More attention should be paid when tightening a zirconia abutment than a titanium one; Carrillo reported two zirconia abutments that fractured when tightened at the required torque [80].…”