Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39661263›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of implant dentistry2024

Systematic review of peri-implant conditions and aesthetic outcomes of customized versus conventional healing abutments.

Miriam Ruhstorfer, Jan-Frederik Güth, Michael Stimmelmayr, Lukas Waltenberger, Oliver Schubert, Tobias Graf

Abstract readSystematic ReviewComparative Study
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of implant dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Impact of the Buccal Dehiscence Morphotype on the Regenerative Strategy in Immediate Implant Placement.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Miriam RuhstorferDepartment of Prosthodontics, Center for Dentistry and Oral Medicine (Carolinum), Goethe University, Frankfurt Am Main, Germany.
Jan-Frederik GüthDepartment of Prosthodontics, Center for Dentistry and Oral Medicine (Carolinum), Goethe University, Frankfurt Am Main, Germany.
Michael StimmelmayrDepartment of Prosthetic Dentistry, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Lukas WaltenbergerDepartment of Prosthodontics and Biomaterials, Center for Implantology, Uniklinik RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Oliver SchubertDepartment of Prosthetic Dentistry, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Tobias GrafDepartment of Prosthodontics, Center for Dentistry and Oral Medicine (Carolinum), Goethe University, Frankfurt Am Main, Germany. t.graf@med.uni-frankfurt.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCustomized healing abutments are utilized to enhance aesthetics and peri-implant soft and hard tissue health, and play a crucial role in the implant-prosthetic workflow. This systematic review was performed to assess and compare the clinical outcomes of customized healing abutments with conventional ones.

methodsThe review was registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42024532449) and followed the PRISMA-guidelines. The PICO-question addressed was: "In patients with dental implants, do customized healing abutments result in beneficial peri-implant conditions compared with conventional healing abutments?" Clinical trials involving immediate and late implant placement that compared different healing abutments based on quantifiable outcomes were included. The "PubMed", "PubMed Central", "Cochrane Library", and "Web of Science databases" were screened for eligible studies until 4/20/2024.

resultsOf 1,396 titles retrieved, 5 studies met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. The included studies showed a low risk of bias as assessed by the RoB2 tool and Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Assessment questionnaire. Compared to conventional healing abutments, customized abutments were associated with a trend toward better clinical outcomes in peri-implant soft and hard tissue, as well as aesthetics. Several results within the cohorts using customized healing abutments showed significantly improved values in soft and hard tissue results as well as aesthetic parameters. Importantly, none of the included studies reported biological or aesthetic disadvantages associated with the use of customized healing abutments.

conclusionsCustomized healing abutments maintain stability of peri-implant hard and soft tissue. However, further studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods are needed to validate these findings.

Indexed as

Dental AbutmentsEsthetics, DentalDental Implant-Abutment DesignDental Implantation, EndosseousDental ImplantsHumansWound HealingDental ImplantsCAD/CAMDental implantEmergence profileHealing abutmentPain developmentPROMsSoft tissue healing

Identifiers

PMID39661263
PMCPMC11635071

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.