ArticleBioinformation2024
Impact of different abutment materials on peri-implant tissue health and esthetics in fixed prosthodontics.
Article in Bioinformation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Influence of abutment materials on peri-implant tissues health-a systematic review.Biomaterial investigations in dentistry · 2026Review
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
The choice of abutment material plays a critical role in peri-implant tissue health and the esthetic outcome of fixed prosthodontics. Various materials, such as titanium, zirconia, and gold alloy, offer different mechanical and biological interactions with the peri-implant tissues, influencing clinical outcomes. However, the long-term impact of these materials on peri-implant soft tissue response and esthetic appearance remains debated. A randomized controlled trial was conducted involving 90 patients requiring single-tooth implant-supported prostheses. Patients were divided into three groups, with 30 participants each receiving abutments made of titanium, zirconia, or gold alloy. Clinical parameters such as probing depth, bleeding on probing, plaque index, and peri-implant soft tissue thickness were recorded over 12 months. Esthetic outcomes were assessed using the pink esthetic score (PES) and white esthetic score (WES). After 12 months, titanium abutments exhibited a mean probing depth of 2.2 ± 0.4 mm, with a bleeding on probing (BOP) percentage of 25%. Zirconia abutments showed significantly lower peri-implant inflammation with a probing depth of 1.9 ± 0.3 mm and BOP of 10%. Gold alloy abutments demonstrated intermediate values with a probing depth of 2.1 ± 0.3 mm and BOP of 15%. Esthetic evaluation revealed that zirconia abutments provided the highest PES/WES score (mean PES = 12.5 ± 1.1, WES = 13.2 ± 1.0), followed by gold alloy (PES = 11.8 ± 1.2, WES = 12.5 ± 1.3), and titanium (PES = 11.2 ± 1.4, WES = 11.8 ± 1.5). Zirconia abutments offer superior peri-implant soft tissue health and esthetics compared to titanium and gold alloy abutments. Clinicians should consider zirconia as the material of choice for optimal biological and esthetic outcomes in fixed prosthodontics. However, further long-term studies are needed to validate these findings.
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.