ABSTRACT
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The implant abutment connection interface has been considered one of the major factors affecting the outcome of implant therapy. However, drawbacks of traditional meta-analyses are the inability to compare more than 2 treatments at a time, which complicates the decision-making process for dental clinicians, and the lack of a network meta-analysis. PURPOSE: The purpose of this network meta-analysis was to assess whether the implant abutment connection influences the outcome of implant-supported prostheses. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An electronic search was undertaken to identify all randomized clinical trials comparing the effect of at least 2 different implant abutment connection designs published from 2009 up to May 2020. Outcome variables were implant survival rate, peri-implant marginal bone loss, and biologic and prosthetic complication rates at 12 months after prosthetic loading. Relevant information was extracted, and quality and risk of bias assessed. Pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses based on a multivariate random-effects meta-regression were performed to assess the comparisons (α=.05 for all analyses). RESULTS: For peri-implant marginal bone loss and prosthetic complications, conical interfaces were determined to be the most effective, with significant differences when compared with external hexagonal connections (P=.011 and P=.038, respectively). No significant differences were found among the implant abutment connections in terms of survival and biologic complications (P>.05 in all direct, indirect, and mixed comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: After 1 year of loading, conical connections showed lower marginal bone loss and fewer prosthetic complications than external hexagonal connections. However, the implant abutment connection design had no influence on the implant survival and biologic complication rates.
