ReviewThe Saudi dental journal2026
What is the impact of titanium base versus multi-unit abutments on immediate loading outcomes: a systematic review.
Review in The Saudi dental journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Titanium Base-Free Multi-Unit Abutment Connections: A Critical Review of Prosthetic Screw Design, Biomechanical Behavior, and Clinical Performance.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis systematic review, conducted per PRISMA guidance, evaluated clinical outcomes of titanium-base (TiB) versus multi-unit (MU) abutments in immediate-loading dental implant protocols, focusing on implant survival, prosthetic and biological complications, and patient-reported outcomes.
methodsPubMed and Scopus were searched for original English-language clinical studies published between 2001 and 2025, including RCTs, cohort studies, and clinical series with at least 12 months of follow-up. Only studies evaluating TiB and MU abutments in immediate-loading protocols were included. Due to heterogeneity in study designs, case selection, outcome measures, and follow-up duration, a narrative descriptive synthesis was performed without pooled statistical analysis.
resultsSeventeen clinical studies met the inclusion criteria. Both TiB and MU abutments showed high implant survival rates, generally in the high 90 s. TiB abutments performed well in single-tooth anterior restorations, showing fewer mechanical complications and better esthetic ratings. MU abutments were predominantly used in full-arch cases, demonstrating reliable long-term function but with higher mechanical maintenance needs. Marginal bone loss remained within acceptable limits across studies. Patient-reported outcomes were inconsistently assessed, though TiB tended to score higher for esthetics and MU for functional comfort.
conclusionsBoth TiB and MU abutments effectively support immediate loading when primary stability and proper prosthetic planning are achieved. TiB may be preferable for esthetic single-tooth cases, while MU abutments remain suitable for full-arch rehabilitation. The limited number of head-to-head studies highlights the need for well-designed randomized trials with standardized outcomes and validated patient-reported measures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.