ReviewOdontology2026
Biomechanical evaluation of implant materials and connection designs: a structured narrative review of titanium and zirconia.
Review in Odontology, 2026. 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.
- A 3-Year Split-Mouth Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial of Zirconia and Titanium Implant-Supported Overdentures.Journal of functional biomaterials · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this structured narrative review is to assess and compare the biomechanical behavior of titanium and zirconia implants, with an emphasis on mechanical characteristics, stress distribution, and potential long-term clinical effects resulting from the material choice and connection design of implant-abutment. The study involves an extensive investigation of the mechanical behavior and biological response of titanium and zirconia dental implants based on experimental findings and finite element analysis (FEA). Investigations included fatigue resistance, corrosion properties, stress shielding, and the evaluated implant-abutment connection geometries, particularly Morse taper and conical connection designs. Data sources included peer-reviewed literature and experimental results, assessing material properties, biomechanical performance, and peri-implant bone responses under various loading conditions. Titanium implants were mechanically more robust and offered superior osseointegration. Still, they had complications associated with stress shielding and potential corrosion. Zirconia implants were visually superior and had corrosion resistance but were biased towards brittleness under extreme occlusal loads. Connection types, especially Morse taper and conical types, were important because they reduced micro-movements and enhanced their stress distribution. The use of FEA provided critical insight into optimizing implant performance. Understanding material-specific properties and selecting the most optimized connection designs can substantially enhance long-term success rates of dental implants, especially in esthetic or load bearing locations. Further, patient-specific bone conditions must drive personalized planning of dental implants to minimize the risks of failures and maximize esthetic and functional outputs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41044463What 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.