Sounds like belief, not proven.
There is no problem with a job well done
and debonding with tibase so i dont understand the argument with step milling for better crown seat.
I omit the problem with a thin gingival phenotype, color blocking translucency and aesthetics.
I will just add that if you do work on the ti-base,screw retained vs screw retained custom milled frame, you have the advantage that in the event of an error, however the framework is not passively seat, the tibase will be dislodged, instead of the implant extending out.
I definitely do not want to argue which is better, but to point out that it depends on the case.
To make ti-base worse in this discussion is to misunderstand and generalize.
It's also easy for me to say that something is bad because I don't like to work on it, but that doesn't mean that it's not intended to solve a problem that I don't see.
The effectiveness, survivability and various benefits of ti-base and diffrent custom abutments are not objectionable.
I understand the discussion of one-piece implants that there are problems with them (used in special cases, not by choice) but to compare them to the ti-base. sorry but no.