Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Magnitude of misfit threshold in implant-supported restorations: A systematic review

Published:November 07, 2022DOI:


      Statement of problem

      Attaining a passive fit in implant restorations is desirable but clinically difficult to achieve, especially in screw-retained prostheses. At a certain magnitude, this misfit will not cause mechanical and biological complications, but the exact level has yet to be determined.


      The purpose of this systematic review was to gather, compare, and appraise studies that attempted to determine the biological and mechanical tolerance of misfits.

      Material and methods

      The review protocol was published in the Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration no. CRD42021268399) and follows the Preferred Reporting for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. An electronic search was conducted through PubMed, Ebscohost, and Web of Science followed by a manual search up to December 2021.


      A total of 413 manuscripts were identified by electronic and manual search. After removing duplicates, nonrelevant titles, and abstract screening, 62 manuscripts were eligible for full-text assessment. Finally, a total of 13 articles (1 cross-sectional study, 1 retrospective and prospective, 7 in vitro studies, and 4 animal studies) met the eligibility criteria and were included in this review. A wide range of tolerable misfits were reported. Vertical misfit up to 1 mm and horizontal misfit up to 345 μm were associated with no adverse outcomes.


      The current literature provides inadequate data to determine a clinical threshold of an acceptable misfit. However, this review demonstrated that the mechanical response to misfit is more critical than the biological response.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Michalakis K.X.
        • Hirayama H.
        • Garefis P.D.
        Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: a critical review.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003; 18: 719-728
        • Katsoulis J.
        • Takeichi T.
        • Sol Gaviria A.
        • Peter L.
        • Katsoulis K.
        Misfit of implant prostheses and its impact on clinical outcomes. Definition, assessment, and a systematic review of the literature.
        Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017; 10: 121-138
        • Kan J.Y.
        • Rungcharassaeng K.
        • Bohsali K.
        • Goodacre C.J.
        • Lang B.R.
        Clinical methods for evaluating implant framework fit.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1999; 81: 7-13
        • Sahin S.
        • Çehreli M.C.
        The significance of passive framework fit in implant prosthodontics: current status.
        Implant Dent. 2001; 10: 85-92
        • Karl M.
        • Winter W.
        • Taylor T.D.
        • Heckmann S.M.
        In vitro study on passive fit in implant-supported 5-unit fixed partial dentures.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004; 19: 30-37
        • Jemt T.
        A retro-prospective effectiveness study on 3448 implant operations at one referral clinic: a multifactorial analysis. Part II: clinical factors associated to peri-implantitis surgery and late implant failures.
        Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017; 19: 972-979
        • Buzayan M.M.
        • Yunus N.B.
        Passive fit in screw retained multi-unit implant prosthesis understanding and achieving: a review of the literature.
        J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2014; 14: 16-23
        • Abduo J.
        • Bennani V.
        • Waddell N.
        • Lyons K.
        • Swain M.
        Assessing the fit of implant fixed prostheses: a critical review.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010; 25: 506-515
        • Spazzin A.O.
        • Dos Santos M.B.F.
        • Sobrinho L.C.
        • Consani R.L.X.
        • Mesquita M.F.
        Effects of horizontal misfit and bar framework material on the stress distribution of an overdenture-retaining bar system: a 3D finite element analysis.
        J Prosthodont. 2011; 20: 517-522
        • Pan Y.
        • Tsoi J.K.
        • Lam W.Y.
        • Pow E.H.
        Implant framework misfit: a systematic review on assessment methods and clinical complications.
        Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2021; 23: 244-258
        • Kunavisarut C.
        • Lang L.A.
        • Stoner B.R.
        • Felton D.A.
        Finite element analysis on dental implant–supported prostheses without passive fit.
        J Prosthodont. 2002; 11: 30-40
        • Wee A.G.
        • Aquilino S.A.
        • Schneider R.L.
        Strategies to achieve fit in implant prosthodontics: a review of the literature.
        Int J Prosthodont. 1999; 12: 167-178
        • Fusayama T.
        • Wakumoto S.
        • Hosoda H.
        Accuracy of fixed partial dentures made by various soldering techniques and one-piece casting.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1964; 14: 334-342
        • Vigolo P.
        • Mutinelli S.
        • Zaccaria M.
        • Stellini E.
        Clinical evaluation of marginal bone level change around multiple adjacent implants restored with splinted and nonsplinted restorations: a 10-year randomized controlled trial.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015; 30: 411-418
        • Solnit G.S.
        • Schneider R.L.
        An alternative to splinting multiple implants: use of the ITI system.
        J Prosthodont. 1998; 7: 114-119
        • Norton M.R.
        Multiple single-tooth implant restorations in the posterior jaws: maintenance of marginal bone levels with reference to implant-abutment microgap.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006; 21: 777-784
        • Vigolo P.
        • Zaccaria M.
        Clinical evaluation of marginal bone level change of multiple adjacent implants restored with splinted and non-splinted restorations: a 5-year prospective study.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010; 25: 1189-1194
        • Ziebert G.
        • Hurtado A.
        • Glapa C.
        • Schiffleger B.
        Accuracy of one-piece castings, preceramic and postceramic soldering.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1986; 55: 312-317
        • Schneider R.L.
        • Wee A.G.
        Fabricating low-fusing metal casts for more accurate implant prosthodontics.
        J Prosthodont. 1996; 5: 301-303
        • Goll G.
        Production of accurately fitting full-arch implant frameworks: part I—clinical procedures.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1991; 66: 377-384
        • Inturregui J.A.
        • Aquilino S.A.
        • Ryther J.S.
        • Lund P.S.
        Evaluation of three impression techniques for osseointegrated oral implants.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1993; 69: 503-509
        • Wang J.
        • Yu Z.
        • Zhu W.
        • Cao J.
        Feature-preserving surface reconstruction from unoriented, noisy point data.
        Comput Graph Forum. 2013; 32: 164-176
        • Giménez B.
        • Pradíes G.
        • Martínez-Rus F.
        • Özcan M.
        Accuracy of two digital implant impression systems based on confocal microscopy with variations in customized software and clinical parameters.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015; 30: 56-64
        • Andriessen F.S.
        • Rijkens D.R.
        • Van Der Meer W.J.
        • Wismeijer D.W.
        Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: a pilot study.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 111: 186-194
        • Anh J.-W.
        • Park J.-M.
        • Chun Y.-S.
        • Kim M.
        • Kim M.
        A comparison of the precision of three-dimensional images acquired by 2 digital intraoral scanners: effects of tooth irregularity and scanning direction.
        Korean J Orthod. 2016; 46: 3-12
        • Takahashi T.
        • Gunne J.
        Fit of implant frameworks: an in vitro comparison between two fabrication techniques.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2003; 89: 256-260
        • Abduo J.
        Fit of CAD/CAM implant frameworks: a comprehensive review.
        J Oral Implantol. 2014; 40: 758-766
        • Jemt T.
        Failures and complications in 391 consecutively inserted fixed prostheses supported by Branemark implants in edentulous jaws: a study of treatment from the time of prosthesis placement to the first annual checkup.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1991; 6: 270-276
        • Papaspyridakos P.
        • Chen C.-J.
        • Chuang S.-K.
        • Weber H.-P.
        • Gallucci G.O.
        A systematic review of biologic and technical complications with fixed implant rehabilitations for edentulous patients.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012; 27: 102-110
        • Monteiro D.R.
        • Goiato M.C.
        • Gennari Filho H.
        • Pesqueira A.A.
        Passivity in implant-supported prosthesis.
        J Craniofac Surg. 2010; 21: 2026-2029
        • De Torres E.M.
        • Rodrigues R.C.S.
        • de Mattos MdGC.
        • Ribeiro R.F.
        The effect of commercially pure titanium and alternative dental alloys on the marginal fit of one-piece cast implant frameworks.
        J Dent. 2007; 35: 800-805
        • Jemt T.
        • Book K.
        Prosthesis misfit and marginal bone loss in edentulous implant patients.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996; 11: 620-625
        • National Heart Lung and Blood Insitute
        Study quality assessment tools.
        (Available at:)
        • Jokstad A.
        • Shokati B.
        New 3D technologies applied to assess the long-term clinical effects of misfit of the full jaw fixed prosthesis on dental implants.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 26: 1129-1134
        • Sarkis-Onofre R.
        • Skupien J.
        • Cenci M.
        • Moraes R.
        • Pereira-Cenci T.
        The role of resin cement on bond strength of glass-fiber posts luted into root canals: a systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies.
        Oper Dent. 2014; 39: E31-E44
        • Garcia-Sanz V.
        • Paredes-Gallardo V.
        • Mendoza-Yero O.
        • Carbonell-Leal M.
        • Albaladejo A.
        • Montiel-Company J.M.
        • et al.
        The effects of lasers on bond strength to ceramic materials: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        PLoS One. 2018; 13: e0190736
        • Löfgren N.
        • Larsson C.
        • Mattheos N.
        • Janda M.
        Influence of misfit on the occurrence of veneering porcelain fractures (chipping) in implant-supported metal-ceramic fixed dental prostheses: an in vitro pilot trial.
        Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017; 28: 1381-1387
        • Abduo J.
        • Swain M.
        Influence of vertical misfit of titanium and zirconia frameworks on peri-implant strain.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012; 27: 529-536
        • Al-Turki L.E.
        • Chai J.
        • Lautenschlager E.P.
        • Hutten M.C.
        Changes in prosthetic screw stability because of misfit of implant-supported prostheses.
        Int J Prosthodont. 2002; 15: 38-42
        • Stimmelmayr M.
        • Groesser J.
        • Beuer F.
        • Erdelt K.
        • Krennmair G.
        • Sachs C.
        • et al.
        Accuracy and mechanical performance of passivated and conventional fabricated 3-unit fixed dental prosthesis on multi-unit abutments.
        J Prosthodont Res. 2017; 61: 403-411
        • Carr A.B.
        • Gerard D.A.
        • Larsen P.E.
        The response of bone in primates around unloaded dental implants supporting prostheses with different levels of fit.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1996; 76: 500-509
        • Duyck J.
        • Vrielinck L.
        • Lambrichts I.
        • Abe Y.
        • Schepers S.
        • Politis C.
        • et al.
        Biologic response of immediately versus delayed loaded implants supporting ill-fitting prostheses: an animal study.
        Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2005; 7: 150-158
        • Jemt T.
        • Lekholm U.
        • Johansson C.B.
        Bone response to implant-supported frameworks with differing degrees of misfit preload: in vivo study in rabbits.
        Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2000; 2: 129-137
        • Michaels G.C.
        • Carr A.B.
        • Larsen P.E.
        Effect of prosthetic superstructure accuracy on the osteointegrated implant bone interface.
        Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1997; 83: 198-205
        • Abasolo M.
        • Aguirrebeitia J.
        • Vallejo J.
        • Albizuri J.
        • Coria I.
        Influence of vertical misfit in screw fatigue behavior in dental implants: a three-dimensional finite element approach.
        Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2018; 232: 1117-1128
        • Jimbo R.
        • Halldin A.
        • Janda M.
        • Wennerberg A.
        • Vandeweghe S.
        Vertical fracture and marginal bone loss of internal-connection implants: a finite element analysis.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013; 28: 171-176
        • Janda M.
        • Larsson C.
        • Mattheos N.
        Influence of misfit on the occurrence of porcelain veneer fractures in implant-supported metal-ceramic fixed dental prostheses. Part 2: a three-dimensional finite element analysis.
        Int J Prosthodont. 2020; 24: 458-462
        • Branemark P.
        Osseointegration and its experimental background.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1983; 50: 399-410
        • Wang T.M.
        • Leu L.J.
        • Wang J.
        • Lin L.D.
        Effects of prosthesis materials and prosthesis splinting on peri-implant bone stress around implants in poor-quality bone: a numeric analysis.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2002; 17: 231-237
        • Guichet D.L.
        • Yoshinobu D.
        • Caputo A.A.
        Effect of splinting and inter- proximal contact tightness on load transfer by implant restorations.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2002; 87: 528-535