Background: Dental implants are widely used and in order to answer to esthetic demands, zirconia has been introduced as an abutment material as an alternative to titanium. Several studies have been published on this topic, but the results have been often inconsistent. The objective of the present study is to systematically analyze the existing literature comparing clinical outcomes of titanium and zirconia implant abutments. The study was designed as a systematic review of systematic reviews. Methods: This systematic review is in accordance with the Transparent Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. A MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and SCOPUS literature search was performed up to and including June 2021. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers and tAMSTAR2 was used to assess the quality of the systematic reviews. Results: The electronic search identified 1146 papers, and 175 duplicates were removed. After manual screening, 954 studies were excluded and the final analysis was conducted on 11 papers. Both mechanical and esthetic outcomes and biological complications were analyzed. Conclusions: It can be concluded that titanium abutments have a better mechanical resistance than zirconia ones. Plaque accumulation is reported to be slightly higher on titanium but without any significant inflammatory process. The esthetic outcomes seem to be more related to the thickness (>3 mm) of the soft tissues than to the abutment material.
Digital impression provides several advantages in implant prosthodontics; however, its use in full-arch rehabilitations, especially immediately after surgery, has yet to be validated. The aim of this study was to retrospectively analyse the fit of immediate full-arch prostheses, fabricated using conventional or digital impressions. Patients requiring a full-arch immediate loading rehabilitation were divided into three groups: T1 (digital impression taken immediately after surgery), T2 (Preoperative digital impression, guided surgery-prefabricated temporary bridge) and C (conventional impression taken immediately after surgery). Immediate temporary prostheses were delivered within 24 h after surgery. X-rays were obtained at the time of prosthesis delivery and at the 2-year follow-up. Primary outcomes were cumulative survival rate (CSR) and prosthesis fit. Secondary outcomes were marginal bone level (MBL) and patient satisfaction. One hundred and fifty patients were treated from 2018 to 2020, with 50 in each group. Seven implants failed during the observation period. The CSR was 99% for T1, 98% for T2 and 99.5% for C. A statistically significant difference in prosthesis fit was found among T1 and T2 vs. C. A statistically significant difference was found in the MBL between T1 and C. The outcomes of the present study suggest that digital impression is a viable alternative to conventional protocols for the realisation of full-arch immediate loading prostheses.