Back to Search Start Over

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

Authors :
de Beus JHW
Cune MS
Slot JWA
Jensen-Louwerse C
la Bastide-van Gemert S
Meijer HJA
Raghoebar GM
Schepke U
Source :
Clinical oral implants research [Clin Oral Implants Res] 2024 Jun; Vol. 35 (6), pp. 630-640. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Apr 03.
Publication Year :
2024

Abstract

Objectives: This 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.<br />Materials and Methods: Fifty patients were randomly assigned to receive either a zirconia (ZrO <subscript>2</subscript> , 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.<br />Results: Mean MBL change after 1 year was 0.01 mm (SD = 0.45; min = 0.72, max = 0.86) for ZrO <subscript>2</subscript> 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 ZrO <subscript>2</subscript> .<br />Conclusion and Clinical Implications: The ZrO <subscript>2</subscript> 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.<br /> (© 2024 The Authors. Clinical Oral Implants Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
1600-0501
Volume :
35
Issue :
6
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
Clinical oral implants research
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
38567929
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14258