Different Implant–Abutment Connections

Shafie, Hamid R.; White, Bryan A.

doi:10.1002/9781118928547.ch4

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The range of implants used in restorative dentistry has become increasingly sophisticated and, simultaneously, more complex (Buser et al, 2017 ). The variation has become so large, that it is difficult for clinicians to choose between the various available components (Shafie & White, 2014 ). One of these components is the implant‐abutment connection configuration.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The parallel‐walled connection types are often equipped with various indexing/anti‐rotational features like an octagon or a hexagon, and exist with a platform switch or a platform match. A conical/tapered connection type implicates a cone‐in‐cone or has a conical portion in the inner cervical part, with or without indexing features in the apical part (Shafie & White, 2014 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effect of implant‐abutment connections on peri‐implant bone levels around single implants in the aesthetic zone: A systematic review and a meta‐analysis

Meijndert

Raghoebar

Vissink

et al. 2021

Clinical & Exp Dental Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To systematically review literature about the effect of different implant‐abutment interface designs on peri‐implant bone level changes, implant loss and mid‐buccal mucosa changes around single implants in the anterior maxilla. Reviewing three connection configurations: Platform switched conical (PS‐conical); Platform switched parallel (PS‐parallel); Platform matched parallel (PM‐parallel). Methods A detailed search was carried out in Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Scopus, Open Gray and African journals Online (until December 1, 2020) and was restricted to clinical prospective studies of at least 1 year and with at least 10 human participants. A meta regression analysis was carried out primarily on the pooled peri‐implant bone level changes followed by implant loss and mid‐buccal mucosa level change. Risk of bias was assessed with RoB 2.0 and ROBINS‐I. The manuscript complied with the PRISMA guidelines and was registered in the PROSPERO database (ID: 225092). Results A total of 5513 hits gave 44 eligible articles for the analyses. Bone level change did not differ significantly between the two platform switched connections; their bone loss scores were significantly lower than PM‐connection. The PS‐conical connections have significantly lower implant losses than the PM connection. Mid‐buccal mucosa level change was comparable between the three connection configurations. Moderate to high risk of bias was detected in the included studies. Conclusions The performance of PS‐conical and PS‐parallel connection configurations both favored bone loss scores compared to the PM‐parallel connection configuration. All three demonstrated mid‐buccal mucosa changes that were small and did not differ significantly amongst the groups.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%