Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 34 (2019), No. 1 21. Mar. 2019
Purpose: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analyses was to evaluate fits of zirconia custom abutments and frameworks on implants and to identify the factors that influence their fits.
Materials and Methods: An electronic search was conducted through PubMed (MEDLINE), Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central Registrar of Controlled Trials. The search was completed in August 2017. Series of meta-analyses were conducted to compare fits of zirconia custom abutments and frameworks on implants with metal abutments and frameworks. The interest variables were the interface gap and the rotational misfit of abutments and the vertical fit of frameworks.
Results: Initially, a total of 672 articles were identified from the electronic search. After applying the inclusion criteria, 17 suitable articles were selected, including 9 studies on the fit of zirconia custom abutments and 8 studies on the fit of zirconia frameworks. There is a tendency for zirconia abutments to exhibit greater interface gaps and rotational misfits than metal abutments. Abutments produced by manual-aided designs/manual-aided manufacturing (MAD/MAM) exhibited inferior fits compared with those produced by computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM). Proprietary abutments had superior fits compared with nonproprietary abutments. Milled zirconia frameworks had insignificantly inferior fits compared with milled metal frameworks.
Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, custom zirconia abutments and nonproprietary abutments appeared to exhibit slightly inferior fits compared with metal abutments or abutments produced by the same implant company. However, the clinical significance of this difference is yet to be determined. The fit of milled zirconia frameworks is generally comparable to milled metal frameworks.
Keywords: accuracy, CAD/CAM, interface gap, MAD/MAM, passive fit