Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 18, 2026

Oral Biofilm Formation on Different Materials for Dental Implants
Published on: June 24, 2018
A randomized clinical trial on zirconia versus titanium implants in maxillary single tooth replacement
J H W de Beus1,2, M S Cune1,3, J W A Slot1
1Department of Restorative Dentistry, University Medical Center Groningen, Center for Dentistry and Oral Hygiene, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
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.
More Related Videos
05:54Real-Time Dynamic Navigation System for the Precise Quad-Zygomatic Implant Placement in a Patient with a Severely Atrophic Maxilla
Published on: October 18, 2021
07:42Quasistatic Mechanical Testing for Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Occlusal Veneers Cemented to Milled Dentin Analog Material
Published on: December 20, 2024
Related Concept Videos
Blind Procedures
Randomized Experiments
Simple randomization
Simple...
Crossover Experiments
Crossover designs are performed even with smaller sample sizes since the samples can act as their controls. These are better than simple randomized trials since patients are exposed to all the treatments.
Blinding
Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Repeated Measures, Cross-Over, Carry-Over, and Latin Square Designs