Trial reportClinical oral implants research2026
One-Year Analysis of Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Two-Piece Zirconia Compared to Titanium Implants: A Multicenter Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in Clinical oral implants research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- When bioactivity comes at a mechanical cost: toward mechanically safe bioactivation of zirconia dental implants.Bioactive materials · 2027Review
- Review
- 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
objectivesTo evaluate the clinical performance of two-piece zirconia implants with screw-retained abutments compared to titanium implants after 1 year of loading. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this multicenter, prospective, randomized clinical trial, 61 two-piece zirconia and 61 titanium implants were placed and restored with single crowns. Evaluations were performed at implant placement, crown delivery, and 1-year post-loading. Peri-implant Marginal Bone Loss (MBL), survival rate, early wound healing index, and soft tissue parameters were assessed. Intergroup comparisons of continuous outcomes were performed using Linear Mixed-Effects Models accounting for center and potential confounders. Categorical variables were analyzed using the chi-square or Fisher's exact test. Survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimates. Significance was set at p < 0.05.
resultsNo significant differences were found between the two implant types. Mean MBL from implantation to crown insertion was 1.10 ± 0.78 mm for titanium and 0.94 ± 0.67 mm for zirconia implants. No significant additional bone loss occurred over the subsequent year, with changes of 0.07 ± 0.55 mm and 0.08 ± 0.51 mm for titanium and zirconia, respectively. After 1 year, zirconia implants showed a 100% survival rate, while titanium implants showed 96.5% with two failures. At 1 year, differences in probing depths, plaque accumulation, and Papilla Bleeding Index were not statistically significant.
conclusionAfter 1 year of loading, no statistically significant differences in MBL, implant survival, or peri-implant health were found between zirconia and titanium implants, indicating no clinical superiority. Zirconia implants may therefore be considered a viable alternative in single-tooth implant restorations.
trial registrationThe study is registered at the German Clinical Trial Register (No. DRKS 00013209) as well as at the Federal Office of Public Health's (FOPH) portal for human research in Switzerland (kofam.ch).
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.