Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 23 (2008), No. 3 15. May 2008
Purpose: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate available evidence for a difference in the stability of peri-implant tissues between titanium abutments versus gold alloy, zirconium oxide, or aluminum oxide abutments.
Materials and Methods: Studies were identified by examining several electronic databases and major dental implant, prosthetic, and periodontal journals. To be selected for the preliminary article pool, the article must have been written in the English language and published from 1980 to March 2007. Articles were sorted based on the nature of the study. In vitro studies and literature reviews were excluded. The included articles were clinical, human histology, and animal studies. Case reports, case series, uncontrolled clinical trials, and clinical studies with teeth treated as a control were excluded from the final review.
Results: The initial article pool included 40 articles of which 9 met the inclusion criteria: 3 animal studies, 2 human histological studies, and 4 randomized clinical trials. Soft tissue recession was not accurately measured in the included clinical studies. Assessment of peri-implant tissues around zirconium oxide and titanium abutments was described only in animal and human histologic studies. Due to differences in study types, timing of follow-ups, and outcome variables, meta-analysis could not be performed.
Conclusions: Included studies revealed that titanium abutments did not maintain a higher bone level in comparison to gold alloy, aluminum oxide, or zirconium oxide abutments. However, there is a lack of information about the clinical performance of zirconium oxide and gold alloy abutments as compared to titanium abutments.
Keywords: abutment, aluminum, biologic width, crestal bone loss, gold alloy, implant, peri-implant soft tissues, zirconium