Books

Purpose: To quantify the cumulative oral implant survival rates and changes in radiographic bone levels based on the configuration of the implant-abutment connection type over time. Materials and Methods: An electronic literature search was conducted in four databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase), and records were refereed by two independent reviewers based on the inclusion criteria. Data from included articles were grouped by implant-abutment connection type into four categories ([1] external hex; [2] bone level, internal, narrow cone < 45 degrees; [3] bone level, internal wide cone ≥ 45 degrees or flat; and [4] tissue level) and duration of follow-up (short-term 1 to 2 years, mid-term 2 to 5 years, and long-term > 5 years). Meta-analyses were performed for cumulative survival rate (CSR) and changes in marginal bone level (ΔMBL) from baseline (loading) to last reported follow-up. Studies were split or merged as appropriate based on the implants and follow-up duration in the study and trial design. The study was compiled under PRISMA 2020 guidelines and registered in the PROSPERO database. Results: A total of 3,082 articles were screened. Fulltext review of 465 articles resulted in a total of 270 articles (representing 16,448 subjects with 45,347 implants) included for quantitative synthesis and analysis. Mean ΔMBL (95% CI) was as follows: short-term external hex = 0.68 mm (0.57, 0.79); short-term bone level, internal, narrow cone < 45 degrees = 0.34 mm (0.25, 0.43); short-term bone level, internal wide cone ≥ 45 degrees = 0.63 mm (0.52, 0.74); short-term tissue level = 0.42 mm (0.27, 0.56); mid-term external hex = 1.03 mm (0.72, 1.34); mid-term bone level, internal, narrow cone < 45 degrees = 0.45 mm (0.34, 0.56); mid-term bone level, internal wide cone ≥ 45 degrees = 0.73 mm (0.58, 0.88); mid-term tissue level = 0.4 mm (0.21, 0.61); long-term external hex = 0.98 mm, 0.70, 1.25); long-term bone level, internal, narrow cone < 45 degrees = 0.44 mm (0.31, 0.57); long-term bone level, internal wide cone ≥ 45 degrees = 0.95 mm (0.68, 1.22); and long-term tissue level = 0.43 mm (0.24, 0.61). CSRs (95% CI) were: short-term external hex = 97% (96%, 98%); short-term bone level, internal, narrow cone < 45 degrees = 99% (99%, 99%); short-term bone level, internal wide cone ≥ 45 degrees = 98% (98%, 99%); short-term tissue level = 99% (98%, 100%); mid-term external hex = 97% (96%, 98%); mid-term bone level, internal, narrow cone < 45 degrees = 98% (98%, 99%); midterm bone level, internal wide cone ≥ 45 degrees = 99% (98%, 99%); mid-term tissue level = 98% (97%, 99%); long-term external hex = 96% (95%, 98%); long-term bone level, internal, narrow cone < 45 degrees = 98% (98%, 99%); long-term bone level, internal wide cone ≥ 45 degrees = 99% (98%, 100%); and long-term tissue level = 99% (98%, 100%). Conclusion: The configuration of the implant-abutment interface has a measurable effect on the ΔMBL over time. These changes can be observed over a period of at least 3 to 5 years. At all measured time intervals, similar ΔMBL was noted for external hex and internal wide cone ≥ 45-degree connections, as were internal, narrow cone < 45-degree and tissue-level connections. Keywords: abutment, bone level, bone loss, connection, failure, implant, review, survival