ArticleCureus2026
Comparative Analysis of Osseointegration Outcomes of Titanium and Zirconia Implants: A Retrospective Observational Cohort Study.
Article 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSuccessful implant therapy depends on achieving stable and long-lasting osseointegration in the peri-implant environment. Zirconia implants have emerged as potential alternatives to titanium implants because of their favorable esthetic properties and biocompatibility. This study aimed to compare the osseointegration outcomes of titanium and zirconia posterior single-tooth implants using clinical and radiographic parameters over a 12-month follow-up period. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective observational cohort study included 50 posterior single-tooth implant sites retrieved from the institutional records between January 2018 and December 2024. Patients were allocated into the titanium implant (Group T, n = 25) and zirconia implant (Group Z, n = 25) groups. Clinical and radiographic parameters, including marginal bone loss (MBL), peri-implant probing depth, modified plaque index, bleeding on probing, bone density, and radiographic bone-to-implant contact, were assessed 12 months after loading. MBL was measured using calibrated digital radiographs analyzed with ImageJ software (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA). Statistical analysis was performed with significance set at p < 0.05.
resultsBaseline demographic and implant-related variables were comparable between the groups, except for the submerged healing protocol, which was significantly more common in the titanium group than in the zirconia group (P = 0.023). The median MBL was 0.58 mm in the titanium group and 0.74 mm in the zirconia group, without a statistically significant difference (p = 0.118). Bleeding on probing was observed in four (16.0%) titanium implants and seven (28.0%) zirconia implants (p = 0.308). No statistically significant differences were observed in peri-implant probing depth, plaque index, radiographic bone density, or bone-to-implant contact (all p > 0.05). Multivariable regression analysis identified the baseline peri-implant bone density as a significant predictor of MBL (p = 0.029). Inter- and intra-examiner reliabilities demonstrated excellent agreement, with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values exceeding 0.90.
conclusionBoth titanium and zirconia implants demonstrated favorable osseointegration and comparable peri-implant clinical outcomes after 12 months of functional loading. Zirconia implants may represent a clinically acceptable alternative to titanium implants in selected patients requiring metal-free rehabilitation with improved esthetic outcomes.
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.