ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2025
Evaluation of Long-Term Success in Zirconia Implants Versus Titanium Implants: A Comparative Study.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 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.
- Clinical evaluation of peri-implantitis relation with implant material.Bioinformation · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The increasing demand for biocompatible and durable dental implants has led to the adoption of zirconia implants as an alternative to the well-established titanium implants. While titanium implants have demonstrated high survival and success rates, zirconia has been proposed to offer superior esthetics and better tissue integration. This study aims to compare the long-term survival and success rates of zirconia and titanium implants over a 5-year period. Methods: This prospective study evaluated 200 patients, divided into two groups: 100 received zirconia implants, and 100 received titanium implants. Parameters such as implant survival, success rate, complications, and peri-implant bone loss were assessed over 5 years. Statistical analysis was performed using Chi-square tests and ANOVA, with Results: At the 5-year follow-up, the survival rate of zirconia implants was 94%, while titanium implants demonstrated a slightly higher survival rate of 96%. However, zirconia implants showed significantly better soft tissue integration and less peri-implant inflammation ( Conclusion: Both zirconia and titanium implants offer high survival and success rates after 5 years of follow-up. However, zirconia implants demonstrated better soft tissue response, making them a viable alternative to titanium implants, particularly in esthetically demanding cases.
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.