Trial reportClinical oral implants research2026
Monolithic Zirconia Versus Porcelain-Fused-to-Metal Implant-Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses in the Posterior Region: 3-Year Results of a Randomized Controlled 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. 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
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the clinical, biological, and technical outcomes of posterior three-unit implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (iFDPs) fabricated from monolithic zirconia (MonoZR) or porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM). MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this prospective randomized controlled trial, partially edentulous patients requiring a posterior three-unit iFDP supported by two implants were randomly assigned to MonoZR or PFM iFDPs. The primary outcome was ceramic fracture. Secondary outcomes included prosthesis survival, complication-free survival, marginal bone level (MBL) changes, peri-implant clinical parameters, and USPHS ratings. Follow-up examinations were performed at 1 and 3 years. Statistical analyses included Kaplan-Meier estimates, Fisher's exact test, and linear mixed-effects models (α = 0.05).
resultsFifty-five patients received iFDPs at baseline (MonoZR: n = 28; PFM: n = 27), and 45 completed the 3-year follow-up. Two prosthesis failures occurred, one in each group, both associated with implant loss, with no difference in survival between groups (p = 1.00). Veneering ceramic chipping occurred only in the PFM group (3/23; 13%) and not in the MonoZR group (0/22) (p = 0.11). Complication-free survival, peri-implant clinical parameters, and MBL changes did not differ significantly between groups (p > 0.05). Plaque index and bleeding on probing increased over time, while probing depth and MBL remained stable. Both groups showed high clinical acceptability according to USPHS criteria.
conclusionsBoth MonoZR and PFM posterior three-unit iFDPs demonstrated high survival and favorable biological outcomes after 3 years. MonoZR showed no chipping events and may represent a promising alternative to PFM for posterior implant-supported restorations.
trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00011039.
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.