English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

When osseointegrated implants irst arrived in Brazil in the late 80s, great care was taken to choose implants and abutments that met the strict criteria established and recommended by major international companies so as to attain the greatest osseointegration and the best peri-implant / restorative outcomes possible. he protocols developed by Brånemark and later on by Schroeder and Schulte should be strictly followed without creating the opportunity for adaptation, as it could increase the chances of failure. Eventually, the classic abutments developed by Brånemark, which were the most used, did not efectively meet many clinical needs, including esthetics. As a result, diferent implant designs were created while implants evolved. Nevertheless, the need for precision and use of original pieces and components was always emphasized. Later on, clone companies copying not only the Brånemark system, but abutments as well, were launched worldwide. A number of companies were set up — some successfully while others not so much — to produce restorative abutments, only. An enormous amount of diferent types of abutment arose by adapting existing ones. hese adaptations became well-known: For instance, the classic UCLA-type abutment developed by the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) became a synonym of calcinable abutment. Subsequently, with the increase in the number of abutment brands and types (including original and clone ones), more than 90 brands were available worldwide in the 2000s. Today we cannot measure the exact number of abutment brands available, since there are so many companies engaged in manufacturing implants and all other necessary components. As osseointegration became successful and popular, less importance was given to the precision of restorative abutments. A compatible abutment would provide just as much attachment, and the intraosseous screw was the part to be most considered while further issues would be solved based on the existing tolerance in the implant-bone interface. Meanwhile, as the price of imported implants were higher, compatible components became popular in the attempt to reduce treatment costs. As low-cost implants gained ground (in Brazil, national implants have the highest market share), implants, abutments and other components of the same brand have been more routinely used. Even so, a number of components compatible with pieces of other brands are frequently used. Using components of diferent brands for the same implant-retained restoration procedure is highly common in clinical practice. After a few years and with the growing number of implants in place, we are now aware of the potential for complication arising from the use of non original pieces: screw fracture and loosening, loss of prosthetic structure and fatigue of components, decreased longevity, in addition to loss of warranty granted by several implant manufacturers. How to cite this section: Polido WD. Origi-

Original versus interchangeable abutments: Is it worth the saving?