ReviewCureus2026
Comparative Evaluation of Titanium Versus Zirconia Implants for Their Clinical Outcomes: An Overview of Reviews.
Review in Cureus, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of dental implants has revolutionized dentistry, with titanium and zirconia being the most commonly utilized materials. This article presents a comparative evaluation of titanium and zirconia implants, focusing on their mechanical, biological, and clinical properties. Although the success of dental implant procedures depends on multiple variables, there is still insufficient literature documenting a comprehensive comparative evaluation of titanium and zirconia implants across their different properties. Therefore, this umbrella review aims to compare and evaluate various properties of titanium and zirconia implants. The intent of this article was to conduct an overview of systematic reviews (SRs) to provide a present review of different properties of titanium and zirconium implants; to analyze survival rate (SR), marginal bone loss (MBL), and/or probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BoP), pink esthetic score, and plaque index (PI); and to identify which has better clinical results among the titanium and zirconia implants. PubMed, Google Scholar, and Embase were used as literature databases. SRs, with or without meta-analysis, were included. A comprehensive search, both manual and electronic, was performed to identify SRs published between 2014 and March 2023 that aligned with the aims of this overview. The methodological quality of the selected reviews was evaluated using the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) tool. Data were primarily presented descriptively and supported by detailed tables summarizing characteristics and findings at both the review and trial levels. The findings indicate that titanium implants demonstrate higher SRs (92.6%-100%) compared to zirconia implants (87.5%-91.25%), with zirconia associated with a greater risk of failure and lower overall success rates. MBL was comparable between the two groups (Ti: -1.17 to -0.125 mm; Zr: -1.38 to -0.25 mm), as were PDs (Ti: 1.6-3.05 mm; Zr: 2.21-2.6 mm), PI, and BoP (Zr: 16.43%; Ti: 10%-20%). Zirconia implants exhibited superior esthetic outcomes and greater early bone apposition at two weeks, whereas titanium implants showed a more favorable bone response at four weeks. Overall, titanium implants remain the gold standard for long-term predictability, while zirconia implants serve as a viable alternative 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.