ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Assessment of mid-term success in various types of zirconia implants: a retrospective clinical analysis.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the clinical outcomes of zirconia dental implants over five years, considering the growing demand for metal-free alternatives to titanium due to aesthetic concerns and potential hypersensitivity reactions to metals. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study analyzed 80 zirconia implants from an initial cohort of 95, with 15 excluded due to loss to follow-up or not meeting inclusion criteria. Both one-piece and two-piece designs were included, and some cases involved Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR). The primary outcome was implant survival.
resultsThe overall survival rate was 83.8% (67/80) after a mean follow-up of 29.0 ± 16.6 months (maximum 62 months). Kaplan-Meier analysis estimated mean survival at 52.6 ± 2.38 months, with the median not reached due to censoring. Survival was significantly lower with immediate placement (p = 0.016). GBR was linked to higher survival, with all GBR implants surviving and failures only in non-GBR cases (p < 0.001). No significant differences appeared in implant design, loading protocol, diameter, jaw location, prosthesis, surface, zirconia brand, or patient sex.
conclusionsZirconia implants showed 83.8% survival at five years, supporting their clinical applicability as metal-free implant systems. Immediate placement had significantly lower survival, favoring late placement. No significant differences were found between one-piece and two-piece implants, or between implants placed with and without GBR. Larger prospective studies with standardized clinical and radiographic assessments are needed to confirm these findings and refine zirconia implant protocols. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Zirconia implants show good mid-term survival and can be an alternative to titanium. However, immediate placement should be approached cautiously due to potential impacts on success.
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.