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

IF 5.3 1区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Clinical Oral Implants Research Pub Date : 2024-04-03 DOI:10.1111/clr.14258

J. H. W. de Beus, M. S. Cune, J. W. A. Slot, C. Jensen-Louwerse, S. la Bastide-van Gemert, H. J. A. Meijer, G. M. Raghoebar, U. Schepke

{"title":"A randomized clinical trial on zirconia versus titanium implants in maxillary single tooth replacement","authors":"J. H. W. de Beus, M. S. Cune, J. W. A. Slot, C. Jensen-Louwerse, S. la Bastide-van Gemert, H. J. A. Meijer, G. M. Raghoebar, U. Schepke","doi":"10.1111/clr.14258","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Fifty patients were randomly assigned to receive either a zirconia (ZrO<sub>2</sub>, <i>n</i> = 25) implant or a titanium (Ti, <i>n</i> = 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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Mean MBL change after 1 year was 0.01 mm (SD = 0.45; min = 0.72, max = 0.86) for ZrO<sub>2</sub> and −0.09 mm (SD = 0.34; min = 0.53, max = −1.06) for Ti (<i>p =</i> .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 (<i>p =</i> .022), in favor of Ti, and (b) root convexity/soft tissue color and texture (<i>p =</i> .005) in favor of ZrO<sub>2</sub>.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion and clinical implications</h3>\n \n <p>The ZrO<sub>2</sub> 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.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"35 6","pages":"630-640"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/clr.14258","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/clr.14258","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

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.

Materials and Methods

Fifty 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.

Results

Mean 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 implications

The 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.

Abstract Image

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

氧化锆与钛种植体在上颌单牙替换中的随机临床试验

这项研究旨在比较上颌前磨牙区的氧化锆和钛牙科植入物。比较基于修复体植入 1 年后的边缘骨水平 (MBL) 变化、临床参数、美学效果和患者相关结果测量 (PROM)。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Clinical Oral Implants Research 医学-工程：生物医学

CiteScore

7.70

自引率

11.60%

发文量

149

审稿时长

3 months

期刊介绍： Clinical Oral Implants Research conveys scientific progress in the field of implant dentistry and its related areas to clinicians, teachers and researchers concerned with the application of this information for the benefit of patients in need of oral implants. The journal addresses itself to clinicians, general practitioners, periodontists, oral and maxillofacial surgeons and prosthodontists, as well as to teachers, academicians and scholars involved in the education of professionals and in the scientific promotion of the field of implant dentistry.