Comparison of peri‐implant clinical outcomes of digitally customized and prefabricated abutments: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

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).

Mechanical properties and marginal fit of prefabricated versus customized dental implant abutments: A comparative study

“…However, Schepke et al 7 reported that the CAD/CAM customized abutment showed similar patients' contentment and marginal bone‐level alteration compared with the stock zirconia abutment after 1 year of clinical use. Currently, there are no significant differences between the two abutment fabrication methods in terms of peri‐implant clinical outcomes within the short‐term period according to a recently published meta‐analysis 8 …”

“…Currently, there are no significant differences between the two abutment fabrication methods in terms of peri-implant clinical outcomes within the short-term period according to a recently published meta-analysis. 8 The abutment-implant interface is the region where the occlusal force is transferred to the implant. Therefore, its long-term stability is important for reducing clinical complications and extending the service life of a dental implant.…”

CAD/CAM Abutments in the Esthetic Zone: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Soft Tissue Stability

“…As a consequence, the role of the customization of implant abutments in aesthetic outcomes should be further elucidated [17]. Numerous systematic reviews and meta-analyses have previously investigated the role of CAD/CAM abutments on pink esthetic score (PES) [6,18,19]. Unfortunately, no clinical data on interproximal soft tissues (e.g., peri-implant papillae) and vestibular soft tissue margin (e.g., midfacial mucosal recession) have been provided.…”

Monolithic zirconia single tooth implant‐supported restorations with CAD/CAM titanium abutments in the posterior region: A 1‐year prospective case series study

“…Nonetheless, the number of studies on this topic is limited and mainly focused on the anterior region. 14,15 Clinical studies evaluating monolithic zirconia implant-supported single restorations with CAD/CAM abutments are also scarce. A challenge with monolithic zirconia restorations is the esthetic outcome.…”

“…The benefits include a customized emergence profile and a greater distance from the material junction to the peri‐implant bone level compared to stock abutments. Nonetheless, the number of studies on this topic is limited and mainly focused on the anterior region 14,15 . Clinical studies evaluating monolithic zirconia implant‐supported single restorations with CAD/CAM abutments are also scarce.…”