The influence of implant‐abutment connection to peri‐implant bone loss: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Different implant-abutment connections are available and it has been claimed they could have an effect on marginal bone loss. The aim of this review is to establish if implant connection configuration influences peri-implant bone loss (PBL) after functional loading. METHODS: A specific question was formulated according to the Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcome (PICO): Does the type of implant-abutment connection (external, internal, or conical) have an influence on peri-implant bone loss? A PubMed/MEDLINE electronic search was conducted to identify English language publications published in international journals during the last decade (from 2006 to 2016). The search was conducted by using the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) keywords "dental implants OR dental abutment AND external connection OR internal connection OR conical connection OR Morse Taper." Selected studies were randomized clinical trials and prospective studies; in vitro studies, case reports and retrospective studies were excluded. Titles and abstracts and, in the second phase, full texts, were evaluated autonomously and in duplicate by two reviewers. RESULTS: A total of 1649 articles were found, but only 14 studies met the pre-established inclusion criteria and were considered suitable for meta-analytic analysis. The network meta-analysis (NMA) suggested a significant difference between the external and the conical connections; this was less evident for the internal and conical ones. Platform-switching (PS) seemed to positively affect bone levels, non-regarding the implant-connection it was applied to. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this systematic review, it can be concluded that crestal bone levels are better maintained in the short-medium term when internal kinds of interface are adopted. In particular, conical connections seem to be more advantageous, showing lower peri-implant bone loss, but further studies are necessary to investigate the efficacy of implant-abutment connection on stability of crestal bone levels.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".