Table 1. Misfits between the Ti-base abutment/implant and Ti-base abutment/crown.

Autor	Objectives	Conclusion
Cardoso et al (2020) 1	Assessed the misfit between Ti-base abutments and implants using the polyvinylsiloxane replica technique using microcomputed tomography	Some Ti-base abutments manufactured by companies other than the implant manufacturer may be more unfit
Camós-Tena et al (2019) 8	They compared the most appropriate restoration technique to obtain the lowest misfit value between the studied prostheses	The milled group statistically showed the best marginal fit. On the other hand, the fully sintered group had the worst results; overcast abutments and Ti-base also presented good results above the casted ones and all systems had gaps below 150 μm (specifically below 60 μm), so clinically they are all good options for rehabilitation
Ramalho et al (2020) 9	Evaluated the effect of different workflows for abutment fabrication on the internal fit at the implant-abutment interface	Prefabricated Ti-base and UCLA abutments exhibited better internal fit at the implant/abutment connection compared with abutments fabricated through a fully digitized workflow (custom CAD/CAM abutments)

Abbreviations: CAD, Computer-Aided Design; CAM, Computer-Aided Manufacturing; Ti, titanium.