One-time versus repeated abutment connection for platform-switched implant: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Qing-qing Wang, Ruoxi Dai, Chris Ying Cao, Hui Fang, Min Han and Quan-Li Li

PLOS ONE, 2017, vol. 12, issue 10, 1-18

Abstract: Objective: This review aims to compare peri-implant tissue changes in terms of clinical and radiographic aspects of implant restoration protocol using one-time abutment to repeated abutment connection in platform switched implant. Method: A structured search strategy was applied to three electronic databases, namely, Pubmed, Embase and Web of Science. Eight eligible studies, including seven randomised controlled studies and one controlled clinical study, were identified in accordance with inclusion/exclusion criteria. Outcome measures included peri-implant bone changes (mm), peri-implant soft tissue changes (mm), probing depth (mm) and postsurgical complications. Result: Six studies were pooled for meta-analysis on bone tissue, three for soft tissue, two for probing depth and four for postsurgical complications. A total of 197 implants were placed in one-time abutment group, whereas 214 implants were included in repeated abutment group. The implant systems included Global implants, Ankylos, JDEvolution (JdentalCare), Straumann Bone level and Conelog-Screwline. One-time abutment group showed significantly better outcomes than repeated abutment group, as measured in the standardised differences in mean values (fixed- and random-effect model): vertical bone change (0.41, 3.23) in 6 months, (1.51, 14.81) in 12 months and (2.47, 2.47) in 3 years and soft tissue change (0.21, 0.23). No significant difference was observed in terms of probing depth and complications. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis revealed that implant restoration protocol using one-time abutment is superior to repeated abutment for platform switched implant because of less bone resorption and soft tissue shifts in former. However, future randomised clinical trials should be conducted to further confirm these findings because of the small samples and the limited quality of the original research.

Date: 2017
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0186385 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 86385&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0186385

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186385

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().