ArticleClinical oral implants research2025
Clinical Performance of Immediately Restored, Surface Modified Two-Piece Zirconia Implants. A Prospective Case Series.
Article in Clinical oral implants research, 2025. 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.
- Prospective clinical study to evaluate the survival of two-piece zirconia implants: a single-center study. 36-month results.International journal of implant dentistry · 2026Article
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
purposeTo evaluate the short-term success and survival rates of immediately restored surface modified two-piece zirconia implants (CL). MATERIAL AND
methodsA total of 23 patients had received CL implants (n = 26) for single-tooth replacements in the anterior and posterior maxilla and mandible at healed extraction sites. Immediate implant restoration was accomplished if an insertion torque ≥ 30 Ncm was reached (Type 3-4 A protocol). Final occlusally screw-retained crowns were provided after 3 months of healing. Implant survival and success (i.e., bleeding on probing-BOP, probing pocket depth-PD, mucosal recession-MR) were assessed at 6 and 12 months following final restoration. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated at 6 and 12 months.
resultsFive implants (n = 5 patients) could not be immediately restored, and four implants were lost during follow-up. The survival rates amounted to 80%. For the final analysis, 16 patients with a total of 16 implants were evaluated. Minor changes to baseline (final restoration) were noted at 6 and 12 months for mean BOP (-3.3% ± 13.14%; 8.3% ± 16.9%), PD (-0.15 ± 0.48 mm; 0.08 ± 0.48 mm), and MR (0.0 ± 0.0 mm; 0.0 ± 0.0 mm) values. Mechanical and technical complications were not observed. Patients expressed an overall high satisfaction at 6 and 12 months.
conclusionsThe presented immediate restoration protocol may be associated with an increased risk for early implant losses.
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.