Amb motiu del tancament d'estiu, la validació de documents es reprendrà a partir del 28 d'agost de 2026. Disculpeu les molèsties.
Con motivo del cierre de verano, la validación de documentos se reanudará a partir del 28 de agosto de 2026. Disculpad las molestias
Due to the summer closure, document validation will resume starting August 28, 2026. We apologize for any inconvenience.

Files

715929.pdf (879.79 KB)

Document type

Article

Version

Published version

Publication date

2021-11-11

Publication license

cc-by (c) Camps Font, Octavi et al., 2021
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/2445/184204

Comparison of external, internal flat-to-flat, and conical implant abutment connections for implant-supported prostheses: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Journal Title

Authors

Director/Tutor

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Related resource

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.09.029

Abstract

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The implant abutment connection interface has been considered one of the major factors affecting the outcome of implant therapy. However, drawbacks of traditional meta-analyses are the inability to compare more than 2 treatments at a time, which complicates the decision-making process for dental clinicians, and the lack of a network meta-analysis. PURPOSE: The purpose of this network meta-analysis was to assess whether the implant abutment connection influences the outcome of implant-supported prostheses. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An electronic search was undertaken to identify all randomized clinical trials comparing the effect of at least 2 different implant abutment connection designs published from 2009 up to May 2020. Outcome variables were implant survival rate, peri-implant marginal bone loss, and biologic and prosthetic complication rates at 12 months after prosthetic loading. Relevant information was extracted, and quality and risk of bias assessed. Pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses based on a multivariate random-effects meta-regression were performed to assess the comparisons (α=.05 for all analyses). RESULTS: For peri-implant marginal bone loss and prosthetic complications, conical interfaces were determined to be the most effective, with significant differences when compared with external hexagonal connections (P=.011 and P=.038, respectively). No significant differences were found among the implant abutment connections in terms of survival and biologic complications (P>.05 in all direct, indirect, and mixed comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: After 1 year of loading, conical connections showed lower marginal bone loss and fewer prosthetic complications than external hexagonal connections. However, the implant abutment connection design had no influence on the implant survival and biologic complication rates.

Subject

Implants dentals, Pròtesis dentals, Cirurgia oral

Subject (English)

Dental implants, Dental prosthesis, Oral surgery

Citation

Collections

Articles publicats en revistes (Odontoestomatologia)
Articles publicats en revistes (Institut d'lnvestigació Biomèdica de Bellvitge (IDIBELL))

Citation

CAMPS FONT, Octavi, et al. Comparison of external, internal flat-to-flat, and conical implant abutment connections for implant-supported prostheses: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2021. Vol. S0022-3913, num. 21, pags. 529-1. ISSN 0022-3913. [consulted: 8 of August of 2026]. Available at: https://hdl.handle.net/2445/184204

Export metadata

JSON - METS

Share record