SynthesisJournal of patient-reported outcomes2025
Patient-reported outcomes of zirconia dental implants: a systematic review and future directions.
Synthesis in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Microbial evaluation of zirconia and titanium implants in the anterior mandibula: a randomized controlled clinical trial.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Porous titania-coated zirconia: preparation and osteogenic performance evaluation.RSC advances · 2025Article
- The Topography of Titanium in Dental Implants: Key to Osseointegration and Bactericidal Capacity.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeZirconia dental implants show excellent biocompatibility and tissue integration, low affinity for plaque, and favorable biomechanical properties. However, these objective measures do not adequately replicate the patient's perception. This systematic review evaluated the evidence on patient-reported outcome (PROs) in zirconia dental implant treatment.
methodsA systematic literature review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines, utilizing six electronic databases, and supplemented by a manual search of relevant journals and websites to ensure a thorough and comprehensive screening process. The identified studies were subjected to preidentified inclusion criteria. Only controlled clinical trials published in English were considered without limitations on the year of publication. Data on the study characteristics (follow-up, survival rate (%), implant system, number of implants, and type of treatment), PROMs, level of evidence, and Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) Bias Score were extracted.
resultsThe initial database and hand search yielded 596 articles; 189 were included in the title and abstract screening after excluding the duplicates. Eighteen articles were selected based on the inclusion criteria, among which six were excluded because they did not match the research question. Thus, the final selection comprised 12 articles. Most PROMs (aesthetics, speaking, comfort, chewing ability, and general satisfaction) at prosthetic delivery revealed significantly improved average scores than those at pretreatment.
conclusionsDespite the respective limitations of the articles included in this systematic review, patients revealed high satisfaction levels with regard to zirconia dental implants. A high level of heterogeneity was observed among the instruments used for measuring the patient-reported outcomes in patients with zirconia implants, thus highlighting the need to develop specific PROMs in the future.
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.