SynthesisEuropean journal of medical research2025
Clinical effectiveness of Zirconia versus titanium dental implants in anterior region: an overview of systematic reviews.
Synthesis in European journal of medical research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- A 3-Year Split-Mouth Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial of Zirconia and Titanium Implant-Supported Overdentures.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Biocompatibility, Durability, and Stability Assessment of an Unconstrained Metacarpophalangeal Joint Prosthesis With Zirconia (ZrOJournal of hand surgery global online · 2026Article
- Evaluating micro-CT as a tool for advanced research in prosthetic dentistry: systematic review and meta-analysis.Odontology · 2026Article
- Soft tissue integration around dental implants: A pressing priority.Biomaterials · 2026Review
- From fixture to function: Evaluating prosthetic complications in dental implant rehabilitation.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Peri-implant soft tissue response to different abutment materials: A randomised controlled clinical trial.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Validating cephalometric angular reconstruction for determining vertical dimension in edentulous patients.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Article
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
Abstract
backgroundNowadays dental implants are commonly used and to fulfil esthetic demands, zirconia has been suggested as an implant material as an alternative to titanium. Many researchers and systematic reviews are documented on it, but the results have been often inconsistent. This overview of systematic reviews aimed to report on the factors that influence the clinical effectiveness of zirconia (Zi) versus titanium (Ti) dental implants in anterior region.
methodsThis overview of systematic reviews (Registration Number CRD42023396206) is in accordance with the Transparent Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, Embase and Google Scholar databases were sourced for systematic review and meta-analyses. Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) criteria and Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews" (AMSTAR-2), evaluated the quality. The PICO-focused question of this overview of systematic reviews was "What are the various factors influencing the clinical performance of Zi versus Ti implants in the anterior area?", Evaluations were assessed by two assessors. In case there was any uncertainty or dispute among the reviewers, the work was included for further screening. Using Cohen's kappa, the inter-reviewer reliability was evaluated.
resultsSix reviews were chosen from 57 suitable reviews for this data analysis. Although the survival and effectiveness rates backed titanium implants, there was no conclusive proof of marginal bone loss. Zirconium implants performed better in terms of aesthetics.
conclusionClinical performance of zirconia could be considered at par with titanium implants in the anterior area. Titanium has exhibited greater mechanical performance but no significant difference between two recorded. In future, studies with improved design are needed to identify biological and technical factors that affect implant's efficacy. NOVELTY AND RELEVANCE: This is the first overview of systematic reviews focusing specifically on the anterior region, evaluates both aesthetic and biomechanical performance of Zi and Ti Implants, offers detailed insight into material-specific advantages and limitations. In the present clinical scenario it addresses a critical gap by comparing the performance of Zi and Ti implants and evaluates patient-centred priorities, particularly in the highly visible anterior region.
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.