Ceramic Dental Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Neugebauer, Jörg; Schoenbaum, Todd R.; Pi-Anfruns, Joan; Yang, Min; Lander, Bradley; Blatz, Markus B.; Fiorellini, Joseph P.

doi:10.11607/jomi.10500

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Compared to the MBL change with the findings reported in the literature, the patients in our study in general presented with less MBL change for both types of implant (Duan et al, 2023;Neugebauer et al, 2023). Allthough some meta-analyses report more favorable results for Ti implants compared to ZrO 2 implants (Elnayef et al, 2017;Sales et al, 2023), short-term differences were small, which were also seen in the present study.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 56%

“…implants (Taheri et al, 2020). For ZrO 2 implants no such comparison has been made to date, the majority of available data pertains to one-piece implants (Neugebauer et al, 2023). Results in our study for both implant types, the ZrO 2 one-piece and the Ti two-piece were also comparable.…”

Section: Ta B L Esupporting

confidence: 62%

“…(e) Fernandes et al, 2022;Neugebauer et al, 2023). The aim of this study was to make this comparison in a prospective clinical trial.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A randomized clinical trial on zirconia versus titanium implants in maxillary single tooth replacement

de Beus,

Cune,

Slot

et al. 2024

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThis RCT aimed to compare zirconia and titanium dental implants in the maxillary premolar region. The comparison was based on marginal bone level (MBL) changes, clinical parameters, aesthetic outcomes, and patient related outcome measures (PROMs) 1 year after prosthetic loading.Materials and MethodsFifty patients were randomly assigned to receive either a zirconia (ZrO2, n = 25) implant or a titanium (Ti, n = 25) bone‐level implant. Implants were provided with a lithium disilicate crown 3 months after placement. Follow‐up was at 1 month and after 1 year. The primary outcome pertained to changes in MBL. Reported secondary outcomes consisted of implant survival, peri‐implant tissue health, aesthetics, and PROMs.ResultsMean MBL change after 1 year was 0.01 mm (SD = 0.45; min = 0.72, max = 0.86) for ZrO2 and −0.09 mm (SD = 0.34; min = 0.53, max = −1.06) for Ti (p = .439). Scores for the other clinical outcome parameters and PROMs were generally favorable, with no significant differences. However, significant differences were found for the aesthetic outcomes regarding two criteria: (a) level of facial mucosa (p = .022), in favor of Ti, and (b) root convexity/soft tissue color and texture (p = .005) in favor of ZrO2.Conclusion and clinical implicationsThe ZrO2 and Ti implant types used in this study, replacing a single missing maxillary premolar, show a comparable outcome in terms of MBL change after 1 year. Clinical and aesthetic parameters, as well as PROMs, are favorable and similar between both implant types after 1 year of prosthetic loading. These short‐term study results suggest that both are suitable for clinical use.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 56%

Section: Ta B L Esupporting

confidence: 62%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A randomized clinical trial on zirconia versus titanium implants in maxillary single tooth replacement

de Beus,

Cune,

Slot

et al. 2024

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Overall, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis performed on 11 studies has established, in the short term, that one-piece ceramic implants achieve osseointegration similar to titanium implants, with a stable marginal bone response [61]. For the long term, the MBL change was, on average, 1.24 mm ± 0.16 mm.…”

Section: One-piece Zirconia Implantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Zirconia Implants: A Mapping Review

Sadowsky

2023

Oral

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The advent of zirconia ceramics with excellent mechanical, biomechanical, and optical properties has made them attractive metal-free substitutes for titanium implants. Both animal and human studies have documented shortcomings with titanium implants. A mapping review of the current literature on three iterations of zirconia implant designs has been challenging due to heterogeneous success data and limited follow-up. Zirconia implants hold promise for a new generation of dental implants, but technical developments are needed for design and material enhancements that will need to be validated by long-term rigorous studies.

show abstract

“…The material has high strength which leads to increased stiffness and brittleness thus making it more vulnerable to radial fractures of the cement surface and or coping from the internal surface. The coping can be manufactured by CAD/CAM or by the condensation technique on refractory die, the latter is modeled with a brush, a slurry is spread on the die and heated in the furnace for the manufacture of the partially sintered coping 16 . The final hardness of the core is obtained after sintering, when glass is melted to a liquid state and penetrates into the alumina, this is known as glass infiltrate.…”

Section: Ceramic Biomaterials In Fixed Dental Prosthesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Criterios para la elección de biomateriales protésicos según sus propiedades fisicoquímicas para los sectores anterior y posterior. Una revisión exhaustiva

Guillén-Martínez,

Alarcón-Sánchez

2024

Rev Cient Odontol (Lima)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To describe the existing knowledge about metal-free prosthetic biomaterials according to their physicochemical properties and based on this, define criteria for their placement in both the anterior and posterior sectors. Materials and methods: A digital search was carried out in the databases: PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar of the literature published in the English language without time restrictions and included original articles such as case reports, retrospective and prospective studies, narrative, comprehensive, systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Meanwhile, short communications, editorials and articles in a language other than English were excluded. Results: 40 articles were evaluated, published between 2000 and 2023. The main characteristics and physicochemical properties of ceramic biomaterials such as zirconia, feldspathic based ceramics, lithium disilicate and alumina, among others, were analyzed and summarized. In addition, certain criteria were defined based on the available scientific evidence on the use of different ceramic systems both in the anterior sector and in the posterior sector for patients who need some type of prosthetic restoration. Conclusions: Among the different metalfree materials used for the construction of fixed dental prostheses, zirconia has been shown to have better aesthetic, biomechanical and biocompatibility properties, which makes it a candidate material for the rehabilitation of partially edentulous patients.

show abstract

Ceramic Dental Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

A randomized clinical trial on zirconia versus titanium implants in maxillary single tooth replacement

A randomized clinical trial on zirconia versus titanium implants in maxillary single tooth replacement

Zirconia Implants: A Mapping Review

Criterios para la elección de biomateriales protésicos según sus propiedades fisicoquímicas para los sectores anterior y posterior. Una revisión exhaustiva

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About