ArticleCureus2024
Comprehensive Evaluation of Titanium, Zirconia, and Ceramic Dental Implant Materials: A Comparative Analysis of Mechanical and Esthetic Properties.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDental implant materials play a pivotal role in the success of restorative dentistry. This study comprehensively compares the mechanical and esthetic properties of three commonly used dental implant materials: titanium, zirconia, and ceramic.
objectiveThis study aimed to provide insights into the suitability of titanium, zirconia, and ceramic for various clinical applications within implant dentistry.
methodsNinety dental implants, 30 for each material, were selected based on their well-established usage in dental implantology. Mechanical properties, including tensile strength, modulus of elasticity, and fatigue resistance, were assessed using state-of-the-art testing machines. Esthetic properties, such as color stability and translucency, were scrutinized through immersion in staining solutions and spectrophotometer measurements. Fracture properties and biocompatibility were also evaluated.
resultsMechanical testing revealed that titanium exhibited the highest tensile strength (810 ± 55 MPa), while zirconia demonstrated the highest modulus of elasticity (208 ± 8 GPa). Titanium also displayed the greatest fatigue resistance (1,010,000 ± 95,000 cycles), whereas zirconia had the highest hardness (1190 ± 45 Vickers hardness number (VHN)). Esthetically, zirconia showed superior color stability (ΔE: 1.7 ± 0.2), while ceramic exhibited the highest translucency (TP%: 15.3 ± 1.7). Zirconia presented the lowest surface roughness (0.28 ± 0.04 μm).
conclusionThis study provides insights into potential dental implant material performance, with zirconia emerging as a promising alternative. Future research should validate these findings in clinical settings, considering a broader array of variables and long-term outcomes.
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.