ArticleBioMed research international2016
One-Piece Zirconia Ceramic versus Titanium Implants in the Jaw and Femur of a Sheep Model: A Pilot Study.
Article in BioMed research international, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Anaesthesia for pigs, sheep, goats and cattle involved in biomedical research: FELASA working group guidelines-Parts I-IV.Laboratory animals · 2026Article
- Shrinkage Volume, Compressive Strength, and Surface Roughness Y-TTRIA Stabilized Tetragonal Zirconia Polycrystal (Y-TZP) Using Binders Variation PVA:PEG as an Alternative Dental Implants Materials.European journal of dentistry · 2024Article
- Zirconia versus Titanium Implants: 8-Year Follow-Up in a Patient Cohort Contrasted with Histological Evidence from a Preclinical Animal Model.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Zirconia vs. Titanium Dental Implants: Primary Stability In-Vitro Analysis.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Modification of the Ceramic Implant Surfaces from Zirconia by the Magnetron Sputtering of Different Calcium Phosphate Targets: A Comparative Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reports have documented titanium (Ti) hypersensitivity after dental implant treatment. Alternative materials have been suggested including zirconia (Zr) ceramics, which have shown predictable osseointegration in animal studies and appear free of immune responses. The aim of the research was to investigate the bone-to-implant contact (BIC) of one-piece Zr, compared with one-piece Ti implants, placed in the jaws and femurs of domestic sheep. Ten New Zealand mixed breed sheep were used. A One-piece prototype Ti (control) and one Zr (test) implant were placed in the mandible, and one of each implant (Ti and Zr) was placed into the femoral epicondyle of each animal. The femur implants were submerged and unloaded; the mandibular implants were placed using a one-stage transgingival protocol and were nonsubmerged. After a healing period of 12 weeks, %BIC was measured. The overall survival rate for mandibular and femur implants combined was 87.5%. %BIC was higher for Zr implants versus Ti implants in the femur (85.5%, versus 78.9%) (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.