SynthesisPeriodontology 20002025
Zirconia, titanium, and polyetheretherketone implant abutments show equal long-term clinical success-A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Periodontology 2000, 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Hundreds of millions of people have one or more missing teeth. Consequently, a substantial number of patients undergo implant therapy each year. However, technical complications and soft tissue inflammation associated with the implant abutment or the type of restoration can lead to bone loss and, ultimately, implant failure. Using the methodology of network meta-analysis to rigorously compare and contrast the clinical performance of the three commonly used abutment materials: titanium (Ti), zirconium (Zr), and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) polymer. Until May 2025, a systematic search was performed in MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Scopus, and CENTRAL to find clinical studies comparing Ti, Zr, and PEEK implant abutments. Case reports, case series, in vitro, and in vivo studies were excluded. The Risk of Bias Tool 2, ROBINS-I, and GRADE approaches were used for quality and certainty assessment. Thirty-four articles (950 patients) were included, with various follow-ups. All abutments had high survival rates and no significant differences in marginal bone loss (BL), probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP), and plaque index (PI). There was no significant difference between Zr and Ti for papillary index (PAP), with a general trend toward better results in Zr, which may be of clinical significance. There was a statistically significant difference in soft tissue discoloration (ΔE) values and technical complications of Zr versus Ti [MD: -2.03, CI: -3.89 to -0.18] and [OR: 0.26, CI: 0.09 to 0.72], respectively, indicating better esthetics and fewer technical complications in Zr. Both Ti and Zr are clinically successful and biologically acceptable. PEEK abutments demonstrated comparable characteristics with both Ti and Zr. However, more studies about PEEK and cost-effectiveness analyses should also be performed to find the best options for clinical applications. PEEK can be a good alternative to Ti and Zr abutments for single-tooth replacement in the anterior and premolar regions.
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.