Article PDF :

Veiw Full Text PDF

Article type :

Review Article

Author :

Siddhi Dattatraya Bhatawadekar, Smita Arun Khalikar, Kishor M Mahale, Vilas M Rajguru, Sonali Vishal Mahajan, Ulhas Tandale, Siddhi Dattatraya Bhatawadekar, Smita Arun Khalikar, Kishor M Mahale, Vilas M Rajguru, Sonali Vishal Mahajan, Ulhas Tandale

Volume :

13

Issue :

3

Abstract :

Introduction: One-piece dental implants integrate the implant and abutment into a single unit, offering simplicity and reduced surgical steps. Two-piece implants, with separate components, provide versatility in prosthetic design and enable more precise adjustments during restoration.1 The question was whether there is a difference in the clinical outcomes of one-piece and two-piece dental implants? Thus, the purpose of this systematic review was to compare the clinical outcomes of one-piece versus two-piece dental implant systems. Materials and Methods: This study followed the “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 and was registered at PROSPERO under registration code CRD42024510898. The PICO question was, “Do patients who received one-piece dental implants have similar clinical outcomes as the ones who received two-piece dental implants?” Results: Electronic search of PubMed (including MEDLINE), Cochrane, Science Direct search engines and manual search revealed final 7 articles to be included in the systematic review. From all the studies a total of 282 patients were evaluated. The outcome measures included were marginal bone level changes, periodontal health, presence of pathogenic microbiota, extent of osseointegration, survival rate, esthetics, biological and technical complications and peri-implant diseases. Discussion: Dental implants restore function and esthetics, with one-piece and two-piece systems showing comparable survival rates and clinical outcomes. Studies suggest minor differences in bone loss, with one-piece implants potentially reducing microgap-related issues but facing technical complications. Proper planning, patient factors, and advanced techniques like computer-assisted surgery are crucial for long-term success.Conclusion: No significant difference was found between the two systems in terms of clinical outcomes.