What does this research mean for the field?

Monolithic zirconia and porcelain-fused-to-metal posterior implant-supported fixed dental prostheses demonstrate comparable high survival rates and favorable biological outcomes over 3 years, with monolithic zirconia showing no chipping events. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.INCREMENTAL. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

What question did this study set out to answer?

To compare 3-year clinical, biological, and technical outcomes between monolithic zirconia and porcelain-fused-to-metal posterior three-unit implant-supported fixed dental prostheses.

August 23, 2026Clinical Oral Implants ResearchOpen Access

Monolithic Zirconia Versus Porcelain‐Fused‐to‐Metal Implant‐Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses in the Posterior Region: 3‐Year Results of a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

APAspasia PachiouNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens RSRaphael SinghUniversity of Zurich RJRonald E. JungUniversity of Zurich

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Randomized trial shows high survival and zero ceramic chipping with monolithic zirconia in partially edentulous patients, indicating a reliable alternative to porcelain-fused-to-metal bridges.

Key Points

To compare 3-year clinical, biological, and technical outcomes between monolithic zirconia and porcelain-fused-to-metal posterior three-unit implant-supported fixed dental prostheses.
Prospective randomized controlled trial (DRKS00011039) in partially edentulous patients requiring a posterior three-unit prosthesis supported by two implants.
Fifty-five patients were randomized to monolithic zirconia (MonoZR: n = 28) or porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM: n = 27), with follow-up at 1 and 3 years (n = 45 completed).
Prosthesis failure occurred in 1 patient per group due to implant loss, showing identical survival rates across cohorts (p = 1.00).
Veneering ceramic chipping occurred in 13% of the PFM group (3/23) compared to 0% in the MonoZR group (0/22; p = 0.11).
Complication-free survival, marginal bone level changes, and peri-implant clinical parameters did not differ significantly between treatment groups (p > 0.05).

Cite This Study

Pachiou et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a8acec27677a341144477cc https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.70160

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Implication

Randomized trial shows high survival and zero ceramic chipping with monolithic zirconia in partially edentulous patients, indicating a reliable alternative to porcelain-fused-to-metal bridges.

Monolithic Zirconia Versus Porcelain‐Fused‐to‐Metal Implant‐Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses in the Posterior Region: 3‐Year Results of a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Key Points

Cite This Study

Monolithic Zirconia Versus Porcelain‐Fused‐to‐Metal Implant‐Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses in the Posterior Region: 3‐Year Results of a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Key Points

Cite This Study

Also Consider

Also Consider