Author:
Padhye Ninad Milind,Calciolari Elena,Zuercher Anina Nives,Tagliaferri Sara,Donos Nikos
Abstract
Abstract
Objective
This systematic review assessed the available evidence on the survival and success rate of zirconia and titanium implants. As secondary outcomes, aesthetic, radiographic and clinical parameters, as well as biological and mechanical complications, were considered.
Materials and methods
A systematic search was performed up to March 2022 to identify CCTs/RCTs comparing zirconia and titanium implants with a minimum of 12 months of follow-up. Meta-analysis was performed when ≥ 2 articles with similar characteristics were retrieved.
Results
Four published articles with two RCTs (2 different patient populations) with 100 zirconia and 99 titanium implants that were followed up over 12–80 months were selected out of the 6040 articles. A non-statistically significant difference between zirconia and titanium implant survival at 12 months was suggested (P = 0.0938). The success rates were 57.5–93.3% and 57.1–100% for zirconia and titanium implants, respectively. The pink aesthetic score (PES) was higher for zirconia (10.33 ± 2.06 to 11.38 ± 0.92) compared to titanium implants (8.14 ± 3.58 to 11.56 ± 1.0).
Conclusion
Based on the 2 RCTs retrieved in the literature, similar survival rates were reported for zirconia and titanium implants in the short term (12 months of follow-up). Future RCTs are warranted to evaluate the long-term outcomes of zirconia implants.
Clinical relevance
Zirconia implants may be the procedure of choice, particularly in the aesthetic zone, since they show a similar survival and success rate as titanium implants on a short-term follow-up.
Trial registration
Systematic review registration number—CRD42021288704 (PROSPERO).
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference54 articles.
1. Branemark PI, Adell R, Breine U, Hansson BO, Lindstrom J, Ohlsson A (1969) Intra-osseous anchorage of dental prostheses. I. Experimental studies. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg 3(2):81–100
2. Donos N, Asche NV, Akbar AN, Francisco H, Gonzales O, Gotfredsen K, Haas R, Happe A, Leow N, Navarro JM, Ornekol T, Payer M, Renouard F, Schliephake H (2021) Impact of timing of dental implant placement and loading: summary and consensus statements of group 1-The 6th EAO Consensus Conference 2021. Clin Oral Implants Res 32(Suppl 21):85–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13809
3. Albrektsson T, Donos N (2012) Implant survival and complications The Third EAO consensus conference 2012. Clin Oral Implants Res. 23(Suppl 6):63–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02557.x
4. Le Guehennec L, Soueidan A, Layrolle P, Amouriq Y (2007) Surface treatments of titanium dental implants for rapid osseointegration. Dent Mater 23(7):844–854
5. Fretwurst T, Buzanich G, Nahles S, Woelber JP, Riesemeier H, Nelson K (2016) Metal elements in tissue with dental peri-implantitis: a pilot study. Clin Oral Implants Res 27(9):1178–1186