Premium
Comparison of peri‐implant clinical outcomes of digitally customized and prefabricated abutments: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Author(s) -
Raee Amir,
Alikhasi Marzieh,
Nowzari Hessam,
Djalalinia Shirin,
Khoshkam Vahid,
Moslemi Neda
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
clinical implant dentistry and related research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.338
H-Index - 85
eISSN - 1708-8208
pISSN - 1523-0899
DOI - 10.1111/cid.12982
Subject(s) - dentistry , medicine , abutment , bleeding on probing , implant , meta analysis , prosthodontics , peri , dental abutments , dental implant , orthodontics , surgery , periodontitis , civil engineering , engineering
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).