ReviewCureus2024
Comparison of Peri-Implant Soft Tissue Around Zirconia and Titanium Abutments in the Aesthetic Zone: A Narrative Review.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Soft and Hard Tissue Outcomes Between Root-Analog Zirconia and Conventional Zirconia Implants: A Prospective Clinical Study.International journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Impact of different implant abutment materials on peri-implant soft tissues.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Peri-implant soft tissue response to different abutment materials: A randomised controlled clinical trial.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Zirconia in Dental Implantology: A Review of the Literature with Recent Updates.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This narrative review compares the peri-implant soft tissue responses around zirconia and titanium abutments in the aesthetic zone, emphasizing their mechanical, biological, and aesthetic properties. Titanium abutments, known for their excellent mechanical strength and fatigue resistance, have traditionally been the standard in dental restorations but face challenges in aesthetic integration due to their metallic appearance and potential for higher inflammatory responses. Zirconia abutments, emerging as a promising alternative, offer superior aesthetic outcomes, reduced plaque accumulation, and lower inflammatory responses, making them ideal for use in visible areas with thin soft tissue biotypes. However, zirconia's mechanical properties, such as lower fracture resistance, necessitate careful clinical application. The review also highlights rare instances of titanium allergies, underscoring the importance of individualized treatment planning and regular monitoring to ensure the longevity and success of implant restorations.
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.