Implant-supported crowns with locking taper implant-abutment connection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Ribeiro, Michele Costa de Oliveira; Vargas-Moreno, Vanessa Felipe; Gomes, Rafael Soares; Faot, Fernanda; Cury, Altair Antoninha Del Bel; Marcello-Machado, Raissa Micaella

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.06.005

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The present study demonstrates an overall survival rate of 100% on the patient level and 89.7% for group AST and 96.8% for group STM on the implant level. This finding is consistent with prior publications, which have also reported high implant survival rates in short-and long-term observation periods [1,2,15,[23][24][25][26][27].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Survival and complication rates of two dental implant systems supporting fixed restorations: 10-year data of a randomized controlled clinical study

Gadzo,

Ioannidis,

Naenni

et al. 2023

Clin Oral Invest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To compare clinical, radiographic, biological and technical long-term outcomes of two types of dental implants over a period of 10 years. Materials and methods Ninety-eight implants were placed in 64 patients, randomly allocated to one of two manufacturers (AST and STM). All implants were loaded with fixed restorations. Outcome measures were assessed at implant insertion (Ti), at baseline examination (TL), at 1, 3, 5, 8 and 10 (T10) years. Data analysis included survival, bone level changes, complications and clinical measures. Results Re-examination was performed in 43 patients (23 AST and 20 STM) at 10 years. The implant level analysis was based on 37 (AST) and 32 (STM) implants. Survival rates of 100% were obtained for both groups. The median changes of the marginal bone levels between baseline and T10 (the primary endpoint) amounted to a loss of 0.07 mm for group AST and a gain of 0.37 mm for group STM (intergroup p = 0.008). Technical complications occurred in 27.0% of the implants in group AST and in 15.6% in group STM. The prevalence of peri-implant mucositis was 29.7% (AST) and 50.1% (STM). The prevalence of peri-implantitis amounted to 0% (AST) and 6.3% (STM). Conclusions Irrespective of the implant system used, the survival rates after 10 years were high. Minimal bone level changes were observed, statistically significant but clinically negligible in favor of STM. Technical complications were more frequently encountered in group AST, while group STM had a higher prevalence of peri-implant mucositis.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Survival and complication rates of two dental implant systems supporting fixed restorations: 10-year data of a randomized controlled clinical study

Gadzo,

Ioannidis,

Naenni

et al. 2023

Clin Oral Invest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The use of small diameter implants in edentulous areas with low bone width or a reduced mesiodistal space is considered to be a suitable treatment option compared with ridge widening treatments because it is simpler and less expensive (30)(31)(32). On the other hand, using implants with a small diameter, in addition to solving the patient's need for bone width surgery, provides acceptable beauty by delivering the prosthesis to the patient on the day of the surgery (especially if the toothless area is in the anterior) (33). The findings of this meta-analysis showed that using small diameter implants with immediate non-functional loading in the anterior maxillary regions is highly successful in reducing bleeding, MBL, and PPD.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Comparison of Survival Rates between Narrow Diameter Implants and Standard Diameter Implants: An Updated Meta-analysis

Ganji

Rostamzadeh

Talimkhani

et al. 2023

Med. J. Islam. Republ. Iran

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…9,13 A recently published study evaluated only the prognosis of internal connection implants, but without comparison with INCC. 14 Therefore, given the lack of evidence supporting differences among the types of internal connections, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the clinical performance through marginal bone loss, complications, and implant survival rate of conical and non-conical internal connections. The null hypotheses were as follows: (1) There is no influence of the type of internal connection on the values of marginal bone loss, (2) ICCs demonstrate complication rates similar to INCCs, and (3) both connection types yield similar implant survival rates.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A recently published study evaluated only the prognosis of internal connection implants, but without comparison with INCC 14 . Therefore, given the lack of evidence supporting differences among the types of internal connections, this systematic review and meta‐analysis aimed to assess the clinical performance through marginal bone loss, complications, and implant survival rate of conical and non‐conical internal connections.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Is the clinical performance of internal conical connection better than internal non‐conical connection for implant‐supported restorations? A systematic review with meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

Rodrigues

Faé

Rosa

et al. 2023

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To evaluate bone loss, prosthodontics and biological complications, and implant survival rates of internal conical connections (ICC) compared with internal non-conical connection (INCC) implants. Methods: The systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021237170). Meta-analysis was performed using standardized mean difference (SMD) for bone loss and risk ratio (RR) for implant survival and complication rates. Risk of bias analysis was evaluated using RoB 2.0, whereas the GRADE tool was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence. A systematic search of the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, and ProQuest databases was performed independently by two reviewers for articles published up to March 2022. The search criteria had no language or publication date restrictions. Handsearching analysis was performed in the reference list of potential articles. Results: Twelve randomized clinical trials, including 678 patients and 1006 implants (ICC [n = 476]; INCC [n = 530]), were included. Meta-analysis revealed that ICC demonstrated a lower risk for marginal bone loss (SMD: −0.80 mm; p = 0.004) and prosthodontics complications (RR: 0.16; p = 0.01) than INCC. However, both internal connections demonstrated no significant difference in implant survival rates (RR: 0.54; p = 0.10) and biological complications (RR: 0.90; p = 0.82). The overall risk of bias revealed some concerns and a low risk of bias for most of the included studies. However, the certainty of evidence of outcomes was considered low to moderate. Conclusion: ICC may be considered a more favorable treatment option than INCC owing to greater preservation of peri-implant bone tissue and a lower probability of prosthodontics complications. However, well-conducted studies with long-term followup are warranted. K E Y W O R D Simplant-abutment, internal butt joint, internal hexagon, tapered, tri-channel Dental implants are considered to be one of many viable alternatives for treating complete and partial edentulism. 1,2 The demand for their use has been growing since their introduction to the global dental market and continues to expand. 3 Many factors can influence the longevity of rehabil-itation with dental implants, including the implant-abutment connection interface. [4][5][6] Current studies have described the superiority of internal over external connections, mainly in relation to maintenance and peri-implant bone tissue.

show abstract

Implant-supported crowns with locking taper implant-abutment connection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Cited by 5 publications

References 40 publications

Survival and complication rates of two dental implant systems supporting fixed restorations: 10-year data of a randomized controlled clinical study

Survival and complication rates of two dental implant systems supporting fixed restorations: 10-year data of a randomized controlled clinical study

The Comparison of Survival Rates between Narrow Diameter Implants and Standard Diameter Implants: An Updated Meta-analysis

Is the clinical performance of internal conical connection better than internal non‐conical connection for implant‐supported restorations? A systematic review with meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About