Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37740825›Full record

SynthesisClinical oral investigations2023

Survival and success of zirconia compared with titanium implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ninad Milind Padhye, Elena Calciolari, Anina Nives Zuercher, Sara Tagliaferri, Nikos Donos

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Simulated oral environment affects zirconia aging and mechanical strength.Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Ninad Milind PadhyeCentre for Oral Clinical Research, Institute of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London (QMUL), London, UK.
Elena CalciolariCentre for Oral Clinical Research, Institute of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London (QMUL), London, UK.
Anina Nives ZuercherCentre for Oral Clinical Research, Institute of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London (QMUL), London, UK.
Sara TagliaferriDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma, Parma, Italy.
Nikos DonosCentre for Oral Clinical Research, Institute of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London (QMUL), London, UK. n.donos@qmul.ac.uk.
Queen Mary University of London · GBUniversity of Parma · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis systematic review assessed the available evidence on the survival and success rate of zirconia and titanium implants. As secondary outcomes, aesthetic, radiographic and clinical parameters, as well as biological and mechanical complications, were considered. MATERIALS AND

methodsA systematic search was performed up to March 2022 to identify CCTs/RCTs comparing zirconia and titanium implants with a minimum of 12 months of follow-up. Meta-analysis was performed when ≥ 2 articles with similar characteristics were retrieved.

resultsFour published articles with two RCTs (2 different patient populations) with 100 zirconia and 99 titanium implants that were followed up over 12-80 months were selected out of the 6040 articles. A non-statistically significant difference between zirconia and titanium implant survival at 12 months was suggested (P = 0.0938). The success rates were 57.5-93.3% and 57.1-100% for zirconia and titanium implants, respectively. The pink aesthetic score (PES) was higher for zirconia (10.33 ± 2.06 to 11.38 ± 0.92) compared to titanium implants (8.14 ± 3.58 to 11.56 ± 1.0).

conclusionBased on the 2 RCTs retrieved in the literature, similar survival rates were reported for zirconia and titanium implants in the short term (12 months of follow-up). Future RCTs are warranted to evaluate the long-term outcomes of zirconia implants. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Zirconia implants may be the procedure of choice, particularly in the aesthetic zone, since they show a similar survival and success rate as titanium implants on a short-term follow-up.

trial registrationSystematic review registration number-CRD42021288704 (PROSPERO).

Indexed as

Dental ImplantsDental Prosthesis DesignDental Restoration FailureEsthetics, DentalHumansTitaniumZirconiumDental ImplantsTitaniumZirconiumzirconium oxideBiological complicationsCeramic implantImplant successImplant survivalMarginal bone lossZirconium dioxide

Identifiers

PMID37740825
PMCPMC10630218
OpenAlexW4386980467

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.