Clinical and radiographic outcomes of zirconia dental implants—A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Roehling, S.; Gahlert, M.; Bacevic, M.; Woelfler, H.; Laleman, I.

doi:10.1111/clr.14133

Cited by 12 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While a 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis has concluded that commercially available zirconia implants demonstrated reliable clinical outcomes based on survival rates, pocket depth, and MBL values, most of their studies investigated one-piece zirconia implants [76]. In fact, only one study reported technical complications with the two-piece zirconia implants (six fractures of 48 fiberglass abutments over 53.7 months) [65].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In fact, only one study reported technical complications with the two-piece zirconia implants (six fractures of 48 fiberglass abutments over 53.7 months) [65]. The systematic review authors also noted that at the onset of 2004, the first zirconia implants were established on the market, and many were replaced with a total of 16 current manufacturers [76]. The top manufacturers today are Straumann, Nobel Biocare, Dentsply, ZimVie, Osteem, Stryker, Smith and Nephew, Integrum, and Southern Implants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Zirconia Implants: A Mapping Review

Sadowsky

2023

Oral

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…How to cite this article: Laleman, I., Lambert, F., Gahlert, M., Bacevic, M., Woelfler, H., & Roehling, S. (2023). The effect of different abutment materials on peri-implant tissues-A systematic review and meta-analysis.…”

Section: Co N Fli C T O F I Nte R E S T S Tate M E Ntmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This focused question was thus answered in two separate systematic reviews. One focused on the effect of implant materials on the peri-implant tissues in clinical trials (here, we want to cite the other systematic review about implants: Roehling S. et al, 2023).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of different abutment materials on peri‐implant tissues—A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Laleman,

Lambert,

Gahlert

et al. 2023

Clinical Oral Implants Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesIn patients with dental implants, what is the effect of transmucosal components made of materials other than titanium (alloys) compared to titanium (alloys) on the surrounding peri‐implant tissues after at least 1 year?Materials and MethodsThis systematic review included eligible randomized controlled trials identified through an electronic search (Medline, Embase and Web of Science) comparing alternative abutment materials versus titanium (alloy) abutments with a minimum follow‐up of 1 year and including at least 10 patients/group. Primary outcomes were peri‐implant marginal bone level (MBL) and probing depth (PD), these were evaluated based on meta‐analyses. Abutment survival, biological and technical complications and aesthetic outcomes were the secondary outcomes. The risk of bias was assessed with the RoB2‐tool. This review is registered in PROSPERO with the number (CRD42022376487).ResultsFrom 5129 titles, 580 abstracts were selected, and 111 full‐text articles were screened. Finally, 12 articles could be included. Concerning the primary outcomes (MBL and PD), no differences could be seen between titanium abutment and zirconia or alumina abutments, not after 1 year (MBL: zirconia: MD = −0.24, 95% CI: −0.65 to 0.16, alumina: MD = −0.06, 95% CI: −0.29 to 0.17) (PD: zirconia: MD = −0.06, 95% CI: −0.41 to 0.30, alumina: MD = −0.29, 95% CI: −0.96 to 0.38), nor after 5 years. Additionally, no differences were found concerning the biological complications and aesthetic outcomes. The most important technical finding was abutment fracture in the ceramic group and chipping of the veneering material.ConclusionsBiologically, titanium and zirconia abutments seem to function equally up to 5 years after placement.

show abstract

“…As of 2017, many questions on the use of zirconia for dental implants were still unanswered [ 18 , 19 ]. A review on the subject was recently published [ 20 ], although with very restricted inclusion criteria, which limited the number of included studies. Moreover, survival analysis of zirconia implants in relation to preparation or not of their coronal part with drills, as well as in relation to implants discontinued from the market or still commercially available, was not performed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical outcomes of zirconia implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Mohseni,

Soufi,

Chrcanovic

2023

Clin Oral Invest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To assess the clinical outcomes of zirconia dental implants based on an updated systematic literature review. Methods An electronic search was performed in three databases, last updated in June 2023, supplemented by hand searching. The eligibility criteria were clinical studies reporting patients rehabilitated with zirconia implants. The cumulative survival rate (CSR) of implants was calculated. A meta-analysis for marginal bone loss (MBL) under different follow-up times and a meta-regression assessing the relationship between mean MBL and follow-up were done. Results Twenty-five studies were included (4017 implants, 2083 patients). Seven studies had follow-up longer than 60 months. 172 implants failed, after a mean of 12.0 ± 16.1 months (min–max 0.3–86.0), of which 47 early failures, and 26 due to implant fracture, the majority in narrow-diameter implants. The 10-year CSR was 95.1%. Implants with coronal part prepared by drills presented statistically significant lower survival than non-prepared implants (p < 0.001). Two-piece implants presented lower survival than one-piece implants (p = 0.017). Implants discontinued from the market presented lower survival than the commercially available ones (p < 0.001). The difference in survival was not significant between implants in maxilla and mandible (p = 0.637). The mean MBL fluctuated between 0.632 and 2.060 mm over long periods of observation (up until 132 months). There was an estimated MBL increase of 0.005 mm per additional month of follow-up. Conclusion Zirconia implants present high 10-year CSR and short-term low MBL. The review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022342055). Clinical relevance The clinical outcomes observed for zirconia dental implants are very promising, although these have not yet been extensively studied as titanium alloy implants.

show abstract

Clinical and radiographic outcomes of zirconia dental implants—A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Cited by 12 publications

References 45 publications

Zirconia Implants: A Mapping Review

Zirconia Implants: A Mapping Review

The effect of different abutment materials on peri‐implant tissues—A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Clinical outcomes of zirconia implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About