ReviewJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2026
Fatigue Survival and Biomechanical Behavior of Two-piece Titanium and Zirconia Dental Implants.
Review in Journal of clinical and experimental 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.
- Quantitative analysis of peri-implant collagen fiber orientation around external hexagon and Morse taper implant connections: A dog model study.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2026Review
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
Background: Titanium implants are considered the gold standard for oral rehabilitation; however, zirconia implants have emerged as a metal-free alternative with promising esthetic and biological properties. Despite these advantages, limited evidence is available regarding their long-term fatigue behavior and fracture resistance. Material and Methods: In this in vitro experimental study conducted at São Paulo State University (UNESP), Brazil, forty implants were divided into two groups (n = 20): zirconia implants (ZZ) and titanium implants (TZ) (4.1 × 10 mm). Implants were embedded in polyurethane blocks according to ISO 14801:2016 specifications. Monolithic zirconia crowns were fabricated using CAD/CAM technology and cemented onto zirconia abutments. All assemblies underwent thermomechanical aging (2×106 cycles, 200 N, 2 Hz). Fatigue resistance was assessed using a stepwise loading protocol. Crown-abutment misfit was measured microscopically, and torque loss after fatigue was recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using Mann-Whitney U tests and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis ( = 0.05). Results: Zirconia implants showed significantly greater fracture resistance (1123.73 ± 153.61 N) than titanium implants (818.67 ± 42.41 N) (p = 0.037). No significant difference in fatigue survival was observed between groups (p = 0.097). The zirconia group presented greater crown-abutment misfit (39.63 ± 10.1 m) than the titanium group (25.09 ± 4.6 m) (p < 0.001). Catastrophic implant body fractures were more frequent in the zirconia group, whereas titanium implants exhibited more repairable failure modes. Conclusions: Zirconia implants demonstrated similar fracture resistance but showed catastrophic implant fractures, whereas titanium implants presented repairable failure patterns.
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.