ReviewDentistry journal2024
The Fracture Resistance Comparison between Titanium and Zirconia Implant Abutments with and without Ageing: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Dentistry journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- When bioactivity comes at a mechanical cost: toward mechanically safe bioactivation of zirconia dental implants.Bioactive materials · 2027Review
- Static and fatigue behavior of one- and two-piece zirconia implant abutment systems: an in vitro study.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Influence of Design Parameters on Implant Abutment Performance: A Scoping Review.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Review
- The Effect of Zirconia Material and the Height of the Ceramic Coping on the Strength of Hybrid Ti-Ceramic Abutments.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Impact of implant abutment materials on force damping response and marginal fit of implant supported restoration.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Effect of opaque porcelain on color and aesthetic outcomes of titanium-abutment implant restorations.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Implant abutments are essential components of implant prosthetic restorations. The golden standard for abutment material is titanium; however, due to its properties, the esthetic result can be compromised. The most popular esthetic material alternatives are one- and two-piece zirconia. The study aimed to answer the questions of whether zirconia abutments can be used interchangeably with titanium in both anterior and posterior regions and how aging of the abutment affects durability. For this study, an electronic search of MEDLINE (PubMed) and Scopus (Embase) was conducted. The PRISMA guidelines were followed, and a systematic review was registered with PROSPERO. The search revealed 4031 results, of which 17 studies were selected. The strongest material for abutments is titanium, closely followed by two-piece zirconia. One-piece zirconia abutments were the weakest. The cyclic loading above 1,000,000 cycles decreased the fracture resistance of the abutments. Differences in implant diameter, angulation, and restoration affected the fracture strength of all compared materials. The main mode of failure for titanium abutments was screw bending or screw fracture. One-piece zirconia most often presented catastrophic failure with internal hexagon fracture below the implant neck. Two-piece zirconia exhibits a combination of failure modes. Two-piece zirconia abutments may be suitable for use in the posterior region, given their comparable fracture resistance to titanium abutments. Despite the fact that one-piece zirconia is capable of withstanding forces that exceed those exerted during mastication, it is recommended that it be employed primarily in the anterior dentition due to its propensity for unfavorable failure modes.
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.