ReviewMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Endosseous Dental Implant Materials and Clinical Outcomes of Different Alloys: A Systematic Review.
Review in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical effectiveness of Zirconia versus titanium dental implants in anterior region: an overview of systematic reviews.European journal of medical research · 2025Pooled it
- Safety of Drugs Used in Difficult-to-Treat Epileptic Syndromes: A Disproportionality Analysis Using the Eudravigilance Database.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Influence of Topography and Composition of Commercial Titanium Dental Implants on Cell Adhesion of Human Gingiva-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells: An In Vitro Study.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Nanotopographical cues for regulation of macrophages and osteoclasts: emerging opportunities for osseointegration.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2022Review
- Recent Advancements in Materials and Coatings for Biomedical Implants.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Knowledge and Perception about Dental Implants, Bone Grafting and Complications in Population of Delhi NCR - An Evaluative Study.Annals of maxillofacial surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, implantology has made significant progress, as it has now become a safe and predictable practice. The development of new geometries, primary and secondary, of new surfaces and alloys, has made this possible. The purpose of this review is to analyze the different alloys present on the market, such as that in zirconia, and evaluate their clinical differences with those most commonly used, such as those in grade IV titanium. The review, conducted on major scientific databases such as Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science and MDPI yielded a startling number of 305 results. After the application of the filters and the evaluation of the results in the review, only 10 Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) were included. Multiple outcomes were considered, such as Marginal Bone Level (MBL), Bleeding on Probing (BoP), Survival Rate, Success Rate and parameters related to aesthetic and prosthetic factors. There are currently no statistically significant differences between the use of zirconia implants and titanium implants, neither for fixed prosthetic restorations nor for overdenture restorations. Only the cases reported complain about the rigidity and, therefore, the possibility of fracture of the zirconium. Certainly the continuous improvement in these materials will ensure that they could be used safely while maintaining their high aesthetic performance.
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.