Two‐piece zirconia versus titanium implants after 80 months: Clinical outcomes from a prospective randomized pilot trial

Abstract

Objectives To prospectively evaluate, as part of an ongoing randomized pilot trial, the clinical outcomes of two‐piece zirconia implants in comparison with titanium implants 80 months after delivery of all‐ceramic (lithium disilicate) single‐tooth restorations. Material and methods The original sample included 31 (16 zirconia and 15 titanium) implants in 22 healthy patients. In addition to evaluating implant survival and success, a number of clinical or radiographic parameters were statistically analyzed: plaque index (PI), bleeding on probing (BOP), pink esthetic score (PES), and marginal bone loss (MBL). Both implant groups were compared using a Mann–Whitney U test. Results Three implants (2 zirconia and 1 titanium) had been lost, so that 28 implants (14 zirconia and 14 titanium) in 21 patients could be evaluated after a mean of 80.9 (SD: 5.5) months. All surviving implants had remained stable, in the absence of any fixture or abutment fractures and without any chipping, fracture, or debonding of crowns. The zirconia implants were associated with PI values of 11.07% (SD: 8.11) and the titanium implants with 15.20% (SD: 15.58), the respective figures for the other parameters being 16.43% (SD: 6.16) or 12.60% (SD: 7.66) for BOP; 11.11 (SD: 1.27) or 11.56 (SD: 1.01) for PES; and 1.38 mm (SD: 0.81) or 1.17 mm (SD: 0.73) for MBL. Conclusions No significant differences were found between the clinical outcomes of two‐piece zirconia and titanium implants based on the aforementioned parameters after 80 months of clinical service. Our results should be interpreted with the limited sample size in mind.

A Prospective Clinical Cohort Investigation on Zirconia Implants: 5-Year Results

“…Mid-and long-term results are rare for zirconia ceramic implants [6][7][8]. Therefore, the present 5-year results of an alumina-toughened zirconia implant adds to the information on zirconia implants and confirms the initial positive clinical and radiographic results of the shorter-term outcomes of this type of implant system [25,26].…”

“…Currently available clinical data on zirconia implants are limited to fixed prosthetic rehabilitations (especially single crowns (SCs) and short-span fixed dental prosthesis (FDPs)) and show high short-term survival rates (98% after 1 year and 97% after 2 years), which are comparable to two-piece titanium implants [2][3][4][5]. Medium and long-term clinical data on zirconia implants are still scarce in the scientific literature [6][7][8]. Zirconia as a metal-free alternative to titanium for the manufacturing of implants is of interest for our patients, since this material can positively influence the esthetic outcome of a reconstruction due to the tooth-like color [9,10].…”

Marginal Bone Loss and Aesthetics Around Zirconia and Titanium Dental Implants-A Metanalysis

“…10 of these articles were excluded as they duplicated during search and 40 articles were excluded as they did not meet the inclusion criteria. A total of eight articles 5,17,19,[27][28][29]36,37 were identified (Figure 1), which compared zirconia implants to titanium implants and were considered for meta-analysis. Five articles 5,17,19,27,37 were analyzed for marginal bone levels and four articles 5,28,29,36 for aesthetics.…”

“…It is a topic of debate whether zirconia implants may cause immunological reactions similar to titanium or not. [25][26][27] A natural appearance of the mucogingival architecture around implant-supported restorations is one of the major treatment goals especially in aesthetically demanding situations.…”

Bioactive Glass Coated Zirconia for Dental Implants: a review

“…The demand for zirconia dental implants are increasing recently. In comparison with the Ti dental implants, their increased esthetic, due to similarity to the human tooth color, is the main benefit of these implants [34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45]. To enhance the zirconia bioactivity and morphological properties for proliferation, excellent cell attachment and the acceptable differentiation during the surrounded bone cure, many efforts have been made [46,47].…”