ArticleInternational journal of dentistry2026
Comparison of Soft and Hard Tissue Outcomes Between Root-Analog Zirconia and Conventional Zirconia Implants: A Prospective Clinical Study.
Article in International journal of dentistry, 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.
- Comparison of Soft and Hard Tissue Outcomes Between Root-Analog Zirconia and Conventional Zirconia Implants: A Prospective Clinical Study.International journal of 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare oral hygiene parameters, crestal bone stability, and early postoperative outcomes between zirconia root-analog implants (RAIs) and conventional zirconia implants (CZIs) over 3 months. Materials and Methods: This prospective, controlled clinical study included 30 participants assigned to either an RAI or CZI group based on anatomical suitability for fabricating a custom RAI. RAIs were designed from digital scans of the extracted roots and milled from zirconia, while the CZI group received standardized Straumann PURE Ceramic Implants. Clinical indices and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-based radiographic measurements were recorded at 1 and 3 months. Data were analyzed using independent Results: No significant differences were observed in plaque index (PI) or bleeding on probing (BOP) between groups at 1 and 3 months. Crestal bone height remained stable for both implant types, with only a slight reduction in CZIs. RAIs demonstrated reduced postoperative swelling, pain, and inflammation at 1 month. Soft tissue indices and bone levels were comparable across both groups at 3 months. Conclusion: RAIs offered improved early patient comfort and bone preservation, suggesting a potential trade-off between mechanical reliability and biological performance. Further long-term studies are needed to optimize RAI design and clinical protocols.
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.