2023 Volume 67 Issue 4 Pages 506-517
Purpose: This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effect of the abutment material on peri-implant soft tissue health and stability.
Study Selection: An electronic and hand search was conducted until February 2022. Only prospective randomized trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing titanium abutments with abutments made of different materials, with a follow-up of at least 6 months, were selected by two independent reviewers. Data on marginal bone loss (MBL) and peri-implant tissue indexes, i.e., plaque index (PI), bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD), and recession (REC), were collected. The risk of bias for RCTs and non-RCTs was evaluated according to the tool reported in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the ROBINS-I tool, respectively. Both pairwise and network meta-analyses (NMA) were performed.
Results: We included 18 relevant studies from 1,437 identified studies. Overall, 612 patients were treated, and 848 abutments were inserted. Five studies presented a low risk of bias. Pairwise meta-analysis showed that, as compared to titanium, zirconia abutments presented a significantly reduced MBL (0.20 mm, 95% Confidence Interval CI [0.14–0.26], P < 0.00001). No significant differences were found for the other outcomes. In the NMA, zirconia abutments demonstrated an 83.3% probability of achieving the highest rank in PI, an 87.0% in BOP, and a 65.0% in PD outcome, suggesting that zirconia abutments generally performed better than titanium and alumina abutments.
Conclusions: Within the limits of the present study, zirconia abutments seem a viable alternative to titanium ones.
