Souza Batista, Victor Eduardo de [UNESP]Santiago Junior, Joel Ferreira [UNESP]Faria Almeida, Daniel Augusto de [UNESP]Toledo Piza Lopes, Leonardo Ferreira de [UNESP]Verri, Fellippo Ramos [UNESP]Pellizzer, Eduardo Piza [UNESP]2015-10-212015-10-212015-02-01Journal Of Prosthodontics-implant Esthetic And Reconstructive Dentistry. Hoboken: Wiley-blackwell, v. 24, n. 2, p. 93-99, 2015.1059-941Xhttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/128494Purpose: The aim of this systematic review was to compare straight-line and offset implant configurations for three-element implant-retained prostheses. Materials and Methods: Two independent reviewers conducted a review on PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library for studies published in English, from January 1, 1995 to January 17, 2014. A systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA statement. All relevant titles were selected according to inclusion/exclusion criteria. From this pool of titles, abstracts and full texts were reviewed. Results: A total of 6080 titles were identified with the initial search. Twenty-one were selected based on title and abstract. Of these, after discussion and complete reading, 12 studies were selected according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, all of which were in vitro studies. Conclusions: A systematic review of the current literature showed only in vitro evidence that there is no consensus on the advantage of using an offset configuration implant compared to those in straight-line configuration, even though some studies present a slight improvement of bone stress distribution when an offset implant is under oblique loading (PICO).93-99engDental implantsImplant-retained dental prosthesisProsthodonticsBiomechanicsArtigo10.1111/jopr.12221WOS:000350152100001Acesso restrito5581364193525500