Objectives:The goal of this review was to identify the biological complication of implant abutment materials in relative to alveolar bone around implant supported superstructure. Methodology: An electronic database search and further a manual searching was directed to detect RCTs, and cohort studies that give evidence about different abutment materials complication. Pocket depth, amount of rescission and crestal bone loss were attributed to alveolar bone loss. Results: fourteen clinical studies were detected from an initial search of 107 studies and the extraction of the analyzing data were tabled according to complication output. Pocket probing depth were documented in eight studies, PPD around Zirconium implant abutments was 3.2 mm versus 3.4 mm for Titanium abutment. Five studies examined the recession index for Zirconium and Titanium implant abutments. The RI ranged from 0 to 0.4 at Titanium implant abutments and 0 to 0.3 at Zirconium implant abutments. For the alveolar loss around Zirconia implant abutment was stated to differ from 0.2-1.48 and 0.3-1.43mm at Titanium abutments. Conclusion: The data reported in this systematic review did not give an evidence for the complication regarding all ceramic versus metallic implant abutment. However, it can be concluded that the assessment of the randomized clinical trials did not provide an absolute decision for the choice of ceramic or metallic as implant abutment material relative to alveolar bone response. The meta-analysis presented a statistically significant difference between abutment material with superiority for the all ceramic abutments over metallic abutment

Objectives:The purpose of this review was to recognize the biological complication of implant superstructure materials in comparative to alveolar bone loss around superstructure. Methodology: A search on the electronic database and additional a manual searching was focused to detect randomized clinical trials and other studies that gives a sign about superstructure complication. alveolar bone loss was ascribed to the amount of rescission, crestal bone and loss Pocket depth. Results:The initial search gives a twenty-six from an initial search of 144 studies and the analyzing data were tabled rendering to output complication. Pocket probing depth were recognized in eighteen clinical studies, Pocket probing depth around all ceramic superstructure was 3.1 mm versus 3.5 mm for porcelain fused to metal superstructure. sixteen studies inspected the recession index for all ceramic and porcelain fused to metal superstructure. recession index ranged from 0.1 to 0.5 at porcelain fused to metal superstructure and 0 to 0.3 at all ceramic superstructure. alveolar bone loss around all ceramic superstructure was itemized to differ from 0.21 -1.5 and 0.4 -1.5 mm at porcelain fused to metal superstructure. Conclusion: The information described in this systematic review did not give an indication for the complication regarding all ceramic versus porcelain fused to metal superstructure. However, it can be settled that the assessment of the randomized clinical trials did not provide an absolute prime for the choice of ceramic or porcelain fused to metal as superstructure material relative to alveolar bone response.