Mechanical outcomes, microleakage, and marginal accuracy at the implant-abutment interface of original versus nonoriginal implant abutments: A systematic review of in vitro studies

Purpose. Instead of original abutments, compatible abutments are often selected for financial reasons. The present study aimed to evaluate mechanical outcomes, microleakage, and marginal accuracy at the implant-abutment interface of original versus nonoriginal implant abutments. Study Selection. Search strategy encompassed literature from 1967 up to March 2017 to identify relevant studies meeting the inclusion criteria. The following electronic databases were consulted: PubMed database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine, Embase (Excerpta Medica dataBASE), and the Grey Literature Database (New York Academy of Medicine Grey Literature Report). Quality assessment of the full-text articles selected was performed. Abutments were classified in original (produced by the same implant manufacturer), nonoriginal certified (produced by a third-party milling center, certified by implant companies), and nonoriginal compatible (produced by a third-party milling center for similar connections). Results. A total of 16 articles fulfilled inclusion criteria and quality assessment and were selected for the qualitative analysis. All of the included studies were in vitro research with high or moderate risk of bias and reported data from 653 implant abutments. Original and nonoriginal certified abutments showed better results in terms of mechanical outcomes, microleakage, and marginal accuracy compared to nonoriginal compatible abutments. Conclusions. Following the clear warnings coming from the present systematic review, clinical suggestions regarding the effect of a nonoriginal abutment can be drawn. However, in vivo, long-term, randomized controlled trials are needed to provide definitive clinical conclusion about the long-term clinical outcomes of original and nonoriginal abutments.