ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2025
Monolithic zirconia outperforms metal-ceramic in mechanical reliability for single implant crowns but lacks long-term validation.
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
a commentary onMalhotra T, Kumar Yadav B, Singh Phukela S et al. A comparative evaluation of prosthetic and biologic outcomes as influenced by two different implant restorative materials: a prospective, split-mouth study. Int J Prosthodont. 2025; https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.8729 .
designThis was a prospective split-mouth study, where each patient received monolithic zirconia and metal-ceramic implant-supported crowns on contralateral sides in the same arch. This design guaranteed direct intra-patient comparison, reducing inter-individual variability. CASE SELECTION: Twenty partially edentulous patients (14 males, 6 females) were selected based on strict inclusion criteria, ensuring bilateral posterior implant placement with opposing natural dentition. Patients with parafunctional habits, active periodontal disease, or systemic conditions affecting bone metabolism were excluded. STUDY TIMELINE: Implant placement and prosthetic restoration were performed per standard clinical protocols. The study assessed outcomes at baseline, 1-year, and 2-year follow-ups, measuring prosthetic integrity, periodontal health, and inflammatory markers. DATA ANALYSIS: Clinical indices (plaque index, bleeding on probing, probing depth), peri-implant crevicular fluid biomarkers (MMP-8 levels), and prosthetic performance (USPHS criteria) were statistically analysed using chi-square tests, ANOVA, and Student t-tests, with significance set at P < 0.05.
resultsBoth materials showed 100% implant and prosthetic survival rate over 2 years. Metal-ceramic crowns exhibited higher incidences of ceramic chipping and screw loosening, while monolithic zirconia crowns demonstrated greater mechanical stability but poorer aesthetic match. No significant differences in marginal bone loss (MBL) or MMP-8 inflammatory marker levels were observed between groups. However, higher plaque index (PI) and probing depth (PD) were recorded for metal-ceramic crowns.
conclusionsMonolithic zirconia crowns demonstrate superior mechanical reliability and fewer technical complications but have aesthetic limitations compared to metal-ceramic crowns. Biologic outcomes were comparable between both materials. Clinicians should weigh mechanical durability versus aesthetic demands when selecting implant-supported restorations. Further long-term studies are recommended 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.