OR Foundation
  • About
    • Oral Reconstruction Foundation
      • Purpose and Mission
      • Foundation Board
      • Scientific Working Group
      • Education Working Group
      • History
      • Career
      • News
  • Granting
    • Requirements
    • Application
  • Publications
    • Grant Publications
    • Consensus Publications
  • Awards
    • Research Award
      • Awards 2018/2019
      • Award 2016/2017
      • Award 2014/2015
      • Award 2012/2013
      • Award 2010/2011
      • Award 2008/2009
    • Poster Competition
      • Competition 2018
      • Competition 2016
      • Competition 2014
      • Competition 2012
  • Education
    • International Symposia
    • Global Symposia
    • National Symposia
    • Curriculum
    • Education Courses
    • Webinars
  • Contact
Select Page

Impact of implant-abutment connection and positioning of the machined collar/ microgap on crestal bone level changes: a systematic review.


Schwarz F, Hegewald A, Becker J

Clin Oral Impl Res 2014;25:417-25

Abstract

Objective:

To address the following focused question: What is the impact of implant–abutment configuration and the positioning of the machined collar/microgap on crestal bone level changes?

Material and methods:

Electronic databases of the PubMed and the Web of Knowledge were searched for animal and human studies reporting on histological/radiological crestal bone level changes (CBL) at nonsubmerged one-/two-piece implants (placed in healed ridges) exhibiting different abutment configurations, positioning of the machined collar/microgap (between 1992 and November 2012: n = 318 titles). Quality assessment of selected full-text articles was performed according to the ARRIVE and CONSORT statement guidelines.

Results:

A total of 13 publications (risk of bias: high) were eligible for the review. The weighted mean difference (WMD) (95% CI) between machined collars placed either above or below the bone crest amounted to 0.835 mm favoring an epicrestal positioning of the rough/smooth border (P < 0.001) (P-value for heterogeneity: 0.885, I2: 0.000% = no heterogeneity). WMD (95% CI) between microgaps placed either at or below the bone crest amounted to −0.479 mm favoring a subcrestal position of the implant neck (P < 0.001) (P-value for heterogeneity: 0.333, I2: 12.404% = low heterogeneity). Only two studies compared different implant–abutment configurations. Due to a high heterogeneity, a meta-analysis was not feasible.

Conclusion:

While the positioning of the machined neck and microgap may limit crestal bone level changes at nonsubmerged implants, the impact of the implant–abutment connection lacks documentation.

SOURCE

Latest Research Award Winners

Dr. Yifan Zhang
Quantitative Clinical Adjustment Analysis of Posterior Single Implant Crown in a Chairside Digital Workflow: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Clin Oral Impl Res. 2019;30:1059-1066

Read more

Dr. Hyun-Chang Lim
Tissue integration of zirconia and titanium implants with and without buccal dehiscence defects — A histologic and radiographic preclinical study. Clin Oral Impl Res. 2019;30:660-9

Read more

Dr. Lorenzo Tavelli
Acellular dermal matrix and coronally advanced flap or tunnel technique in the treatment of multiple adjacent gingival recessions. A 12-year follow-up from a randomized clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol. 2019;46:937-48

Read more

Dr. Lukasz Witek
Repair of critical-sized long bone defects using dipyridamole-augmented 3D-printed bioactive ceramic scaffolds. J Orthop Res. 2019;37:2499-507

Read more

Oral Reconstruction Foundation


Margarethenstrasse 38 

4053 Basel
Switzerland

Phone: +41 61 565 41 51
Email: info@orfoundation.org

OR Foundation – U.S. Section

2300 Riverchase Center
Birmingham, AL 35244
USA
Phone: +1 205 986 7989
Email: info.us@orfoundation.org

Newsletter

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • RSS

© Oral Reconstruction Foundation 2023 | Imprint | Disclaimer | Privacy | Sitemap | Professional websites Basel