Biological effect of the abutment material on the stability of peri-implant marginal bone levels: A systematic review and meta-analysis

To analyse possible effects of titanium surface topography on bone integration. Our analyses were centred on a PubMed search that identified 1184 publications of assumed relevance; of those, 1064 had to be disregarded because they did not accurately present in vivo data on bone response to surface topography. The remaining 120 papers were read and analysed, after removal of an additional 20 papers that mainly dealt with CaP-coated and Zr implants; 100 papers remained and formed the basis for this paper. The bone response to differently configurated surfaces was mainly evaluated by histomorphometry (bone-to-implant contact), removal torque and pushout/pullout tests. A huge number of the experimental investigations have demonstrated that the bone response was influenced by the implant surface topography; smooth (S(a) 1-2 microm) surfaces showed stronger bone responses than rough (S(a)>2 microm) in some studies. One limitation was that it was difficult to compare many studies because of the varying quality of surface evaluations; a surface termed 'rough' in one study was not uncommonly referred to as 'smooth' in another; many investigators falsely assumed that surface preparation per se identified the roughness of the implant; and many other studies used only qualitative techniques such as SEM. Furthermore, filtering techniques differed or only height parameters (S(a), R(a)) were reported. * Surface topography influences bone response at the micrometre level. * Some indications exist that surface topography influences bone response at the nanometre level. * The majority of published papers present an inadequate surface characterization. * Measurement and evaluation techniques need to be standardized. * Not only height descriptive parameters but also spatial and hybrid ones should be used.

Two systematic reviews have evaluated the quality of research and reporting of observational studies investigating the prevalence of, the incidence of and the risk factors for peri-implant diseases and of experimental clinical studies evaluating the efficacy of preventive and therapeutic interventions.

In this study, the reproducibility of a newly developed pink esthetic score (PES) for evaluating soft tissue around single-tooth implant crowns was assessed. The effect of observer specialization was another point of interest. Twenty observers (five prosthodontists, five oral surgeons, five orthodontists and five dental students) were given photographs of 30 single-tooth implant crowns. Seven variables were evaluated vs. a natural reference tooth: mesial papilla, distal papilla, soft-tissue level, soft-tissue contour, alveolar process deficiency, soft-tissue color and texture. Using a 0-1-2 scoring system, 0 being the lowest, 2 being the highest value, the maximum achievable PES was 14. Each observer was requested to make two assessments at an interval of 4 weeks. At the second assessment, the photographs were scored in the reverse order. The mean PES of evaluations at the first assessment (n=600) was 9.46 (+/-3.81 SD), and 9.24 (+/-3.8 SD) at the second one. The difference between these two means was not significant statistically (P=0.6379). Implant-related mean PES for single-tooth implants varied from 2.28 to 13.8, with standard deviations between 0.46 and 3.51. Very poor and very esthetic restorations showed the smallest standard deviations. The mean total PES was 10.6 for the prosthodontists, 9.2 for the oral surgeons, 9.9 for the dental students and 7.6 for the orthodontists. The PES reproducibly evaluates peri-implant soft tissue around single-tooth implants. Thus, an objective outcome of different surgical or prosthodontic protocols can be assessed. Orthodontists were clearly more critical than the other observers.