Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
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).
Padhye et al. (Sat,) studied this question.