The Experts below are selected from a list of 234 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Irena Sailer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
A systematic review of the influence of the implant-abutment Connection on the clinical outcomes of ceramic and metal implant abutments supporting fixed implant reconstructions
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2018Co-Authors: Bjarni E. Pjetursson, Marcel Zwahlen, Irena Sailer, Cristina Zarauz, Malin Strasding, Anja ZembicAbstract:OBJECTIVES The objective of this systematic review was to assess the influence of implant-abutment Connection and abutment material on the outcome of implant-supported single crowns (SCs) and fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). METHODS An electronic Medline search complemented by manual searching was conducted to identify randomized controlled clinical trials, prospective and retrospective studies with a mean follow-up time of at least 3 years. Patients had to have been examined clinically at the follow-up visit. Failure and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poisson regression, and comparisons were made with multivariable Poisson regression models. RESULTS The search provided 1511 titles and 177 abstracts. Full-text analysis was performed for 147 articles resulting in 60 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of these studies indicated an estimated 5-year survival rate of 97.6% for SCs and 97.0% for FDPs supported by implants with internal implant-abutment Connection and 95.7% for SCs and 95.8% for FDPs supported by implants with External Connection. The 5-year abutment failure rate ranged from 0.7% to 2.8% for different Connections with no differences between the types of Connections. The total number of complications was similar between the two Connections, yet, at External Connections, abutment or occlusal screw loosening was more predominant. Ceramic abutments, both internally and Externally connected, demonstrated a significantly higher incidence of abutment fractures compared with metal abutments. CONCLUSION For implant-supported SCs, both metal and ceramic abutments with internal and External Connections exhibited high survival rates. Moreover, implant-supported FDPs with metal abutments with internal and External Connections for also showed high survival rates.
-
A systematic review of the influence of the implant-abutment Connection on the clinical outcomes of ceramic and metal implant abutments supporting fixed implant reconstructions.
Clinical oral implants research, 2018Co-Authors: Bjarni E. Pjetursson, Marcel Zwahlen, Irena Sailer, Cristina Zarauz, Malin Strasding, Anja ZembicAbstract:The objective of this systematic review was to assess the influence of implant-abutment Connection and abutment material on the outcome of implant-supported single crowns (SCs) and fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). An electronic Medline search complemented by manual searching was conducted to identify randomized controlled clinical trials, prospective and retrospective studies with a mean follow-up time of at least 3 years. Patients had to have been examined clinically at the follow-up visit. Failure and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poisson regression, and comparisons were made with multivariable Poisson regression models. The search provided 1511 titles and 177 abstracts. Full-text analysis was performed for 147 articles resulting in 60 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of these studies indicated an estimated 5-year survival rate of 97.6% for SCs and 97.0% for FDPs supported by implants with internal implant-abutment Connection and 95.7% for SCs and 95.8% for FDPs supported by implants with External Connection. The 5-year abutment failure rate ranged from 0.7% to 2.8% for different Connections with no differences between the types of Connections. The total number of complications was similar between the two Connections, yet, at External Connections, abutment or occlusal screw loosening was more predominant. Ceramic abutments, both internally and Externally connected, demonstrated a significantly higher incidence of abutment fractures compared with metal abutments. For implant-supported SCs, both metal and ceramic abutments with internal and External Connections exhibited high survival rates. Moreover, implant-supported FDPs with metal abutments with internal and External Connections for also showed high survival rates. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
-
Internal vs. External Connections for abutments/reconstructions: a systematic review
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2012Co-Authors: Stefano Gracis, Paolo Vigolo, Konstantinos Michalakis, Per Vult Von Steyern, Marcel Zwahlen, Irena SailerAbstract:The objectives of the review were (1) to evaluate the accuracy of implant-level impressions in cases with internal and External Connection abutments/reconstructions, and (2) to evaluate the incidence of technical complications of internal and External Connection metal- or zirconia-based abutments and single-implant reconstructions.
-
Internal vs. External Connections for abutments/reconstructions: a systematic review.
Clinical oral implants research, 2012Co-Authors: Stefano Gracis, Paolo Vigolo, Konstantinos Michalakis, Marcel Zwahlen, Per Vult Von Steyern, Irena SailerAbstract:The objectives of the review were (1) to evaluate the accuracy of implant-level impressions in cases with internal and External Connection abutments/reconstructions, and (2) to evaluate the incidence of technical complications of internal and External Connection metal- or zirconia-based abutments and single-implant reconstructions. A MEDLINE electronic search was conducted to identify English language publications in dental journals related to each of the two topics by inserting the appropriate keywords. These electronic searches were complemented by a hand search of the January 2009 to January 2012 issues of the following journals: Clinical Oral Implants Research, The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, The International Journal of Prosthodontics, The International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry, The International Journal of Oral Maxillofacial Implants, Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research. Seven in vitro studies were included in the review to evaluate the accuracy of implant-level accuracy. No clinical study was found. There was no study that directly compared the influence of internal and External implant Connections for abutments/reconstructions on the accuracy of implant-level impressions. All in vitro studies reported separately on the two Connection designs and they did not use same protocol and, therefore, the data could not be compared. Fourteen clinical studies on metal-based abutments/reconstructions and five clinical studies on zirconia-based abutments/reconstructions satisfied the inclusion criteria and, therefore, were included in the review to evaluate the incidence of technical complications. The most frequent mechanical complication found in both implant Connection design when employing metal abutments/reconstructions was screw loosening. Implant-level impression accuracy may be influenced by a number of variables (implant Connection type, Connection design, disparallelism between multiple implants, impression material and technique employed). Implant divergence appears to affect negatively impression accuracy when using internal Connection implants. Based on the sparse literature evaluating the incidence of technical complications of metal or zirconia abutments/reconstructions, it was concluded that: The incidence of fracture of metal-based and zirconia-based abutments and that of abutment screws does not seem to be influenced by the type of Connection. Loosening of abutment screws was the most frequently occurring technical complication. The type of Connection seems to have an influence on the incidence of the screw loosening: more loose screws were reported for Externally connected implant systems for both types of materials. However, proper preload may decrease the incidence of such a complication. © 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S.
-
in vitro study of the influence of the type of Connection on the fracture load of zirconia abutments with internal and External implant abutment Connections
International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, 2009Co-Authors: Irena Sailer, Thomas Sailer, Bogna Stawarczyk, Ronald E Jung, Christoph H F HammerleAbstract:Purpose: To determine whether zirconia abutments with an internal Connection exhibit similar fracture load as zirconia abutments with an External Connection. Materials and Methods: The following zirconia abutments were divided into four groups of 20 each: StraumannCARES abutments on Straumann implants (group A), Procera abutments on Branemark implants (group B), Procera abutments on NobelReplace implants (group C), and Zirabut SynOcta prototype abutments on Straumann implants (group D). The abutments were fixed on their respective implants either internally via a secondary abutment (A) or a metallic coupling (C) (two-piece) or directly Externally (B) and internally (D) (one-piece). In each group, 10 abutments were left unrestored (A1 to D1). Ten received glass-ceramic crowns (A2 to D2). Static loading was performed according to the ISO norm 14801 until failure. The bending moment was calculated for comparison of the groups and subjected to statistical analysis (Student t test). Results: The mean bending moments of the unrestored abutments were 371.5 +/- 142.3 Ncm (A1), 276.5 +/- 47.6 Ncm (B1), 434.9 +/- 124.8 Ncm (C1), and 182.5 +/- 136.5 Ncm (D1). Two-piece internally connected abutments exhibited higher bending moments than one-piece internally (C1 versus D1 P = .003, A1 versus D1 P = .03) or Externally (C1 versus B1 P = .004) connected abutments. The groups with restorations did not show different bending moments than those without restorations. The mean bending moments of the restored abutments were 283.3 +/- 44.8 Ncm (A2), 291.5 +/- 31.7 Ncm (B2), 351.5 +/- 58 Ncm (C2), and 184.3 +/- 77.7 Ncm (D2). Group C2 exhibited the highest bending moment (P < .05). Internally connected one-piece abutments (D2) were weaker than all other groups (D2 versus A2 P = .002; D2 versus B2 P = .001; D2 versus C2 P = .0003). Conclusions: The type of Connection significantly influenced the strength of zirconia abutments. Superior strength was achieved by means of internal Connection via a secondary metallic component. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24:850-858.
Federico Gualini - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Dental implants with internal versus External Connections: 5-year post-loading results from a pragmatic multicenter randomised controlled trial.
European Journal of Oral Implantology, 2016Co-Authors: Marco Esposito, Hassan Maghaireh, Roberto Pistilli, Maria Gabriella Grusovin, Sang Taek Lee, Anna Trullenque-eriksson, Federico GualiniAbstract:PURPOSE To evaluate advantages and disadvantages of identical implants with internal or External Connections. MATERIALS AND METHODS One hundred and twenty patients with any type of edentulism (single tooth, partial and total edentulism), requiring one implant-supported prosthesis were randomly allocated in two equal groups to receive either implants with an External Connection (EC) or implants of the same type with an internal Connection (IC) (EZ Plus, MegaGen Implant, Gyeongbuk, South Korea), at four centres. Due to slight differences in implant design and components, IC implants were platformswitched while EC were not. Patients were followed for 5 years after initial loading. Outcome measures were prosthesis/implant failures, any complication, marginal bone level changes and clinician preference, assessed by blinded outcome assessors. RESULTS Sixty patients received 96 EC implants and 60 patients received 107 IC implants. Three patients dropped out with four EC implants and five patients with ten IC implants, but all remaining patients were followed up to 5-year post-loading. One prosthesis supported by EC implants and two by IC implants failed (P = 0.615, difference = -0.02, 95% CI: -0.08 to 0.04). One EC implant failed versus three IC implants in two patients (P = 0.615, difference = -0.02, 95% CI: -0.08 to 0.04). Ten complications occurred in 10 EC patients versus nine complications in 9 IC patients (P = 1.000, difference = 0.01, 95% CI: -0.13 to 0.15). There were no statistically significant differences for prosthesis and implant failures and complications between the different Connection types. Five years after loading, there were no statistically significant differences in marginal bone level estimates between the two groups (difference = 0.14 mm, 95% CI: -0.28 to 0.56, P (ancova) = 0.505) and both groups lost bone from implant placement in a statistically significant way: 1.13 mm for the EC implants and 1.21 mm for the IC implants. Two operators had no preference and two preferred IC implants. CONCLUSIONS Within the limitations given by the difference in neck design and platform switching between EC and IC implants, 5-year post-loading data did not show any statistically significant differences between the two Connection types, therefore clinicians could choose whichever they preferred.
-
Dental implants with internal versus External Connections: 5-year post-loading results from a pragmatic multicenter randomised controlled trial.
European journal of oral implantology, 2016Co-Authors: Marco Esposito, Hassan Maghaireh, Roberto Pistilli, Maria Gabriella Grusovin, Sang Taek Lee, Anna Trullenque-eriksson, Federico GualiniAbstract:To evaluate advantages and disadvantages of identical implants with internal or External Connections. One hundred and twenty patients with any type of edentulism (single tooth, partial and total edentulism), requiring one implant-supported prosthesis were randomly allocated in two equal groups to receive either implants with an External Connection (EC) or implants of the same type with an internal Connection (IC) (EZ Plus, MegaGen Implant, Gyeongbuk, South Korea), at four centres. Due to slight differences in implant design and components, IC implants were platformswitched while EC were not. Patients were followed for 5 years after initial loading. Outcome measures were prosthesis/implant failures, any complication, marginal bone level changes and clinician preference, assessed by blinded outcome assessors. Sixty patients received 96 EC implants and 60 patients received 107 IC implants. Three patients dropped out with four EC implants and five patients with ten IC implants, but all remaining patients were followed up to 5-year post-loading. One prosthesis supported by EC implants and two by IC implants failed (P = 0.615, difference = -0.02, 95% CI: -0.08 to 0.04). One EC implant failed versus three IC implants in two patients (P = 0.615, difference = -0.02, 95% CI: -0.08 to 0.04). Ten complications occurred in 10 EC patients versus nine complications in 9 IC patients (P = 1.000, difference = 0.01, 95% CI: -0.13 to 0.15). There were no statistically significant differences for prosthesis and implant failures and complications between the different Connection types. Five years after loading, there were no statistically significant differences in marginal bone level estimates between the two groups (difference = 0.14 mm, 95% CI: -0.28 to 0.56, P (ancova) = 0.505) and both groups lost bone from implant placement in a statistically significant way: 1.13 mm for the EC implants and 1.21 mm for the IC implants. Two operators had no preference and two preferred IC implants. Within the limitations given by the difference in neck design and platform switching between EC and IC implants, 5-year post-loading data did not show any statistically significant differences between the two Connection types, therefore clinicians could choose whichever they preferred.
-
Dental implants with internal versus External Connections: 1-year post-loading results from a pragmatic multicenter randomised controlled trial.
European journal of oral implantology, 2015Co-Authors: Marco Esposito, Hassan Maghaireh, Roberto Pistilli, Maria Gabriella Grusovin, Sang Taek Lee, Federico Gualini, Jungtaek Yoo, Jacopo ButiAbstract:Purpose To evaluate advantages and disadvantages of identical implants with internal or External Connections. Materials and methods Two hundred patients with any type of edentulism (single tooth, partial and total edentulism) requiring one implant-supported prosthesis were randomly allocated in two equal groups to receive either implants with an External Connection (EC) or implants of the same type but with an internal Connection (IC) (EZ Plus, MegaGen Implant, Gyeongbuk, South Korea) at seven centres. Due to slight differences in implant design/components, IC implants were platform switched while EC were not. Patients were followed for 1 year after initial loading. Outcome measures were prosthesis/implant failures, any complication, marginal bone level changes and clinician preference assessed by blinded outcome assessors. Results One hundred and two patients received 173 EC implants and 98 patients received 154 IC implants. Six patients dropped out with 11 EC implants and 3 patients with four IC implants, but all remaining patients were followed up to 1-year post-loading. Two centres did not provide any periapical radiographs. Two prostheses supported by EC implants and one supported by IC implants failed (P = 1.000, difference = -0.01, 95% CI: -0.05 to 0.04). Three EC implants failed in 3 patients versus two IC implants in 1 patient (P = 0.6227, difference = -0.02, 95% CI: -0.07 to 0.03). EC implants were affected by nine complications in 9 patients versus six complications of IC implants in 6 patients (P = 0.5988, difference = -0.02, 95% CI: -0.10 to 0.06). There were no statistically significant differences for prosthesis/implant failures and complications between the implant systems. One year after loading, there were no statistically significant differences in marginal bone level changes between the two groups (difference = 0.24, 95% CI: -0.01 to 0.50, P = 0.0629) and both groups lost bone from implant placement in a statistically significant manner: 0.98 mm for the EC implants and 0.85 mm for the IC implants. Five operators had no preference and two preferred IC implants. Conclusions Within the limitations given by the difference in neck design and platform switching between EC and IC implants, preliminary short-term data (1-year post-loading) did not show any statistically significant differences between the two Connection types, therefore clinicians could choose whichever one they preferred.
Marco Esposito - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Dental implants with internal versus External Connections: 5-year post-loading results from a pragmatic multicenter randomised controlled trial.
European Journal of Oral Implantology, 2016Co-Authors: Marco Esposito, Hassan Maghaireh, Roberto Pistilli, Maria Gabriella Grusovin, Sang Taek Lee, Anna Trullenque-eriksson, Federico GualiniAbstract:PURPOSE To evaluate advantages and disadvantages of identical implants with internal or External Connections. MATERIALS AND METHODS One hundred and twenty patients with any type of edentulism (single tooth, partial and total edentulism), requiring one implant-supported prosthesis were randomly allocated in two equal groups to receive either implants with an External Connection (EC) or implants of the same type with an internal Connection (IC) (EZ Plus, MegaGen Implant, Gyeongbuk, South Korea), at four centres. Due to slight differences in implant design and components, IC implants were platformswitched while EC were not. Patients were followed for 5 years after initial loading. Outcome measures were prosthesis/implant failures, any complication, marginal bone level changes and clinician preference, assessed by blinded outcome assessors. RESULTS Sixty patients received 96 EC implants and 60 patients received 107 IC implants. Three patients dropped out with four EC implants and five patients with ten IC implants, but all remaining patients were followed up to 5-year post-loading. One prosthesis supported by EC implants and two by IC implants failed (P = 0.615, difference = -0.02, 95% CI: -0.08 to 0.04). One EC implant failed versus three IC implants in two patients (P = 0.615, difference = -0.02, 95% CI: -0.08 to 0.04). Ten complications occurred in 10 EC patients versus nine complications in 9 IC patients (P = 1.000, difference = 0.01, 95% CI: -0.13 to 0.15). There were no statistically significant differences for prosthesis and implant failures and complications between the different Connection types. Five years after loading, there were no statistically significant differences in marginal bone level estimates between the two groups (difference = 0.14 mm, 95% CI: -0.28 to 0.56, P (ancova) = 0.505) and both groups lost bone from implant placement in a statistically significant way: 1.13 mm for the EC implants and 1.21 mm for the IC implants. Two operators had no preference and two preferred IC implants. CONCLUSIONS Within the limitations given by the difference in neck design and platform switching between EC and IC implants, 5-year post-loading data did not show any statistically significant differences between the two Connection types, therefore clinicians could choose whichever they preferred.
-
Dental implants with internal versus External Connections: 5-year post-loading results from a pragmatic multicenter randomised controlled trial.
European journal of oral implantology, 2016Co-Authors: Marco Esposito, Hassan Maghaireh, Roberto Pistilli, Maria Gabriella Grusovin, Sang Taek Lee, Anna Trullenque-eriksson, Federico GualiniAbstract:To evaluate advantages and disadvantages of identical implants with internal or External Connections. One hundred and twenty patients with any type of edentulism (single tooth, partial and total edentulism), requiring one implant-supported prosthesis were randomly allocated in two equal groups to receive either implants with an External Connection (EC) or implants of the same type with an internal Connection (IC) (EZ Plus, MegaGen Implant, Gyeongbuk, South Korea), at four centres. Due to slight differences in implant design and components, IC implants were platformswitched while EC were not. Patients were followed for 5 years after initial loading. Outcome measures were prosthesis/implant failures, any complication, marginal bone level changes and clinician preference, assessed by blinded outcome assessors. Sixty patients received 96 EC implants and 60 patients received 107 IC implants. Three patients dropped out with four EC implants and five patients with ten IC implants, but all remaining patients were followed up to 5-year post-loading. One prosthesis supported by EC implants and two by IC implants failed (P = 0.615, difference = -0.02, 95% CI: -0.08 to 0.04). One EC implant failed versus three IC implants in two patients (P = 0.615, difference = -0.02, 95% CI: -0.08 to 0.04). Ten complications occurred in 10 EC patients versus nine complications in 9 IC patients (P = 1.000, difference = 0.01, 95% CI: -0.13 to 0.15). There were no statistically significant differences for prosthesis and implant failures and complications between the different Connection types. Five years after loading, there were no statistically significant differences in marginal bone level estimates between the two groups (difference = 0.14 mm, 95% CI: -0.28 to 0.56, P (ancova) = 0.505) and both groups lost bone from implant placement in a statistically significant way: 1.13 mm for the EC implants and 1.21 mm for the IC implants. Two operators had no preference and two preferred IC implants. Within the limitations given by the difference in neck design and platform switching between EC and IC implants, 5-year post-loading data did not show any statistically significant differences between the two Connection types, therefore clinicians could choose whichever they preferred.
-
Dental implants with internal versus External Connections: 1-year post-loading results from a pragmatic multicenter randomised controlled trial.
European journal of oral implantology, 2015Co-Authors: Marco Esposito, Hassan Maghaireh, Roberto Pistilli, Maria Gabriella Grusovin, Sang Taek Lee, Federico Gualini, Jungtaek Yoo, Jacopo ButiAbstract:Purpose To evaluate advantages and disadvantages of identical implants with internal or External Connections. Materials and methods Two hundred patients with any type of edentulism (single tooth, partial and total edentulism) requiring one implant-supported prosthesis were randomly allocated in two equal groups to receive either implants with an External Connection (EC) or implants of the same type but with an internal Connection (IC) (EZ Plus, MegaGen Implant, Gyeongbuk, South Korea) at seven centres. Due to slight differences in implant design/components, IC implants were platform switched while EC were not. Patients were followed for 1 year after initial loading. Outcome measures were prosthesis/implant failures, any complication, marginal bone level changes and clinician preference assessed by blinded outcome assessors. Results One hundred and two patients received 173 EC implants and 98 patients received 154 IC implants. Six patients dropped out with 11 EC implants and 3 patients with four IC implants, but all remaining patients were followed up to 1-year post-loading. Two centres did not provide any periapical radiographs. Two prostheses supported by EC implants and one supported by IC implants failed (P = 1.000, difference = -0.01, 95% CI: -0.05 to 0.04). Three EC implants failed in 3 patients versus two IC implants in 1 patient (P = 0.6227, difference = -0.02, 95% CI: -0.07 to 0.03). EC implants were affected by nine complications in 9 patients versus six complications of IC implants in 6 patients (P = 0.5988, difference = -0.02, 95% CI: -0.10 to 0.06). There were no statistically significant differences for prosthesis/implant failures and complications between the implant systems. One year after loading, there were no statistically significant differences in marginal bone level changes between the two groups (difference = 0.24, 95% CI: -0.01 to 0.50, P = 0.0629) and both groups lost bone from implant placement in a statistically significant manner: 0.98 mm for the EC implants and 0.85 mm for the IC implants. Five operators had no preference and two preferred IC implants. Conclusions Within the limitations given by the difference in neck design and platform switching between EC and IC implants, preliminary short-term data (1-year post-loading) did not show any statistically significant differences between the two Connection types, therefore clinicians could choose whichever one they preferred.
Marcel Zwahlen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
A systematic review of the influence of the implant-abutment Connection on the clinical outcomes of ceramic and metal implant abutments supporting fixed implant reconstructions
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2018Co-Authors: Bjarni E. Pjetursson, Marcel Zwahlen, Irena Sailer, Cristina Zarauz, Malin Strasding, Anja ZembicAbstract:OBJECTIVES The objective of this systematic review was to assess the influence of implant-abutment Connection and abutment material on the outcome of implant-supported single crowns (SCs) and fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). METHODS An electronic Medline search complemented by manual searching was conducted to identify randomized controlled clinical trials, prospective and retrospective studies with a mean follow-up time of at least 3 years. Patients had to have been examined clinically at the follow-up visit. Failure and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poisson regression, and comparisons were made with multivariable Poisson regression models. RESULTS The search provided 1511 titles and 177 abstracts. Full-text analysis was performed for 147 articles resulting in 60 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of these studies indicated an estimated 5-year survival rate of 97.6% for SCs and 97.0% for FDPs supported by implants with internal implant-abutment Connection and 95.7% for SCs and 95.8% for FDPs supported by implants with External Connection. The 5-year abutment failure rate ranged from 0.7% to 2.8% for different Connections with no differences between the types of Connections. The total number of complications was similar between the two Connections, yet, at External Connections, abutment or occlusal screw loosening was more predominant. Ceramic abutments, both internally and Externally connected, demonstrated a significantly higher incidence of abutment fractures compared with metal abutments. CONCLUSION For implant-supported SCs, both metal and ceramic abutments with internal and External Connections exhibited high survival rates. Moreover, implant-supported FDPs with metal abutments with internal and External Connections for also showed high survival rates.
-
A systematic review of the influence of the implant-abutment Connection on the clinical outcomes of ceramic and metal implant abutments supporting fixed implant reconstructions.
Clinical oral implants research, 2018Co-Authors: Bjarni E. Pjetursson, Marcel Zwahlen, Irena Sailer, Cristina Zarauz, Malin Strasding, Anja ZembicAbstract:The objective of this systematic review was to assess the influence of implant-abutment Connection and abutment material on the outcome of implant-supported single crowns (SCs) and fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). An electronic Medline search complemented by manual searching was conducted to identify randomized controlled clinical trials, prospective and retrospective studies with a mean follow-up time of at least 3 years. Patients had to have been examined clinically at the follow-up visit. Failure and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poisson regression, and comparisons were made with multivariable Poisson regression models. The search provided 1511 titles and 177 abstracts. Full-text analysis was performed for 147 articles resulting in 60 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of these studies indicated an estimated 5-year survival rate of 97.6% for SCs and 97.0% for FDPs supported by implants with internal implant-abutment Connection and 95.7% for SCs and 95.8% for FDPs supported by implants with External Connection. The 5-year abutment failure rate ranged from 0.7% to 2.8% for different Connections with no differences between the types of Connections. The total number of complications was similar between the two Connections, yet, at External Connections, abutment or occlusal screw loosening was more predominant. Ceramic abutments, both internally and Externally connected, demonstrated a significantly higher incidence of abutment fractures compared with metal abutments. For implant-supported SCs, both metal and ceramic abutments with internal and External Connections exhibited high survival rates. Moreover, implant-supported FDPs with metal abutments with internal and External Connections for also showed high survival rates. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
-
Internal vs. External Connections for abutments/reconstructions: a systematic review
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2012Co-Authors: Stefano Gracis, Paolo Vigolo, Konstantinos Michalakis, Per Vult Von Steyern, Marcel Zwahlen, Irena SailerAbstract:The objectives of the review were (1) to evaluate the accuracy of implant-level impressions in cases with internal and External Connection abutments/reconstructions, and (2) to evaluate the incidence of technical complications of internal and External Connection metal- or zirconia-based abutments and single-implant reconstructions.
-
Internal vs. External Connections for abutments/reconstructions: a systematic review.
Clinical oral implants research, 2012Co-Authors: Stefano Gracis, Paolo Vigolo, Konstantinos Michalakis, Marcel Zwahlen, Per Vult Von Steyern, Irena SailerAbstract:The objectives of the review were (1) to evaluate the accuracy of implant-level impressions in cases with internal and External Connection abutments/reconstructions, and (2) to evaluate the incidence of technical complications of internal and External Connection metal- or zirconia-based abutments and single-implant reconstructions. A MEDLINE electronic search was conducted to identify English language publications in dental journals related to each of the two topics by inserting the appropriate keywords. These electronic searches were complemented by a hand search of the January 2009 to January 2012 issues of the following journals: Clinical Oral Implants Research, The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, The International Journal of Prosthodontics, The International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry, The International Journal of Oral Maxillofacial Implants, Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research. Seven in vitro studies were included in the review to evaluate the accuracy of implant-level accuracy. No clinical study was found. There was no study that directly compared the influence of internal and External implant Connections for abutments/reconstructions on the accuracy of implant-level impressions. All in vitro studies reported separately on the two Connection designs and they did not use same protocol and, therefore, the data could not be compared. Fourteen clinical studies on metal-based abutments/reconstructions and five clinical studies on zirconia-based abutments/reconstructions satisfied the inclusion criteria and, therefore, were included in the review to evaluate the incidence of technical complications. The most frequent mechanical complication found in both implant Connection design when employing metal abutments/reconstructions was screw loosening. Implant-level impression accuracy may be influenced by a number of variables (implant Connection type, Connection design, disparallelism between multiple implants, impression material and technique employed). Implant divergence appears to affect negatively impression accuracy when using internal Connection implants. Based on the sparse literature evaluating the incidence of technical complications of metal or zirconia abutments/reconstructions, it was concluded that: The incidence of fracture of metal-based and zirconia-based abutments and that of abutment screws does not seem to be influenced by the type of Connection. Loosening of abutment screws was the most frequently occurring technical complication. The type of Connection seems to have an influence on the incidence of the screw loosening: more loose screws were reported for Externally connected implant systems for both types of materials. However, proper preload may decrease the incidence of such a complication. © 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S.
Anja Zembic - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
A systematic review of the influence of the implant-abutment Connection on the clinical outcomes of ceramic and metal implant abutments supporting fixed implant reconstructions
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2018Co-Authors: Bjarni E. Pjetursson, Marcel Zwahlen, Irena Sailer, Cristina Zarauz, Malin Strasding, Anja ZembicAbstract:OBJECTIVES The objective of this systematic review was to assess the influence of implant-abutment Connection and abutment material on the outcome of implant-supported single crowns (SCs) and fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). METHODS An electronic Medline search complemented by manual searching was conducted to identify randomized controlled clinical trials, prospective and retrospective studies with a mean follow-up time of at least 3 years. Patients had to have been examined clinically at the follow-up visit. Failure and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poisson regression, and comparisons were made with multivariable Poisson regression models. RESULTS The search provided 1511 titles and 177 abstracts. Full-text analysis was performed for 147 articles resulting in 60 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of these studies indicated an estimated 5-year survival rate of 97.6% for SCs and 97.0% for FDPs supported by implants with internal implant-abutment Connection and 95.7% for SCs and 95.8% for FDPs supported by implants with External Connection. The 5-year abutment failure rate ranged from 0.7% to 2.8% for different Connections with no differences between the types of Connections. The total number of complications was similar between the two Connections, yet, at External Connections, abutment or occlusal screw loosening was more predominant. Ceramic abutments, both internally and Externally connected, demonstrated a significantly higher incidence of abutment fractures compared with metal abutments. CONCLUSION For implant-supported SCs, both metal and ceramic abutments with internal and External Connections exhibited high survival rates. Moreover, implant-supported FDPs with metal abutments with internal and External Connections for also showed high survival rates.
-
A systematic review of the influence of the implant-abutment Connection on the clinical outcomes of ceramic and metal implant abutments supporting fixed implant reconstructions.
Clinical oral implants research, 2018Co-Authors: Bjarni E. Pjetursson, Marcel Zwahlen, Irena Sailer, Cristina Zarauz, Malin Strasding, Anja ZembicAbstract:The objective of this systematic review was to assess the influence of implant-abutment Connection and abutment material on the outcome of implant-supported single crowns (SCs) and fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). An electronic Medline search complemented by manual searching was conducted to identify randomized controlled clinical trials, prospective and retrospective studies with a mean follow-up time of at least 3 years. Patients had to have been examined clinically at the follow-up visit. Failure and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poisson regression, and comparisons were made with multivariable Poisson regression models. The search provided 1511 titles and 177 abstracts. Full-text analysis was performed for 147 articles resulting in 60 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of these studies indicated an estimated 5-year survival rate of 97.6% for SCs and 97.0% for FDPs supported by implants with internal implant-abutment Connection and 95.7% for SCs and 95.8% for FDPs supported by implants with External Connection. The 5-year abutment failure rate ranged from 0.7% to 2.8% for different Connections with no differences between the types of Connections. The total number of complications was similar between the two Connections, yet, at External Connections, abutment or occlusal screw loosening was more predominant. Ceramic abutments, both internally and Externally connected, demonstrated a significantly higher incidence of abutment fractures compared with metal abutments. For implant-supported SCs, both metal and ceramic abutments with internal and External Connections exhibited high survival rates. Moreover, implant-supported FDPs with metal abutments with internal and External Connections for also showed high survival rates. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
