Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 19, 2026
Real-Time Dynamic Navigation System for the Precise Quad-Zygomatic Implant Placement in a Patient with a Severely Atrophic Maxilla
Published on: October 18, 2021
A Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing a One-Piece Zirconia Tissue-Level Implant and Two-Piece Titanium Bone-Level
J H W de Beus1,2, M S Cune1,3, L Muijselaar1
1Department of Dentistry Orthodontics, Section of Restorative Dentistry, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Objectives:
This RCT evaluated and compared the clinical performance of zirconia and titanium dental implants placed in the maxillary premolar region. Outcomes were assessed 3 years after prosthetic loading and included marginal bone level (MBL) changes, clinical parameters, aesthetic outcomes, and patient related outcome measures (PROMs).
Materials And Methods:
Fifty patients were randomly allocated to receive either a zirconia one-piece (ZrO2, n = 25) implant or a titanium bone-level (Ti, n = 25) implant, restored with a lithium disilicate crown 3 months after implant placement. Primary outcome was change in MBL. Secondary outcomes included implant survival, peri-implant tissue health, technical complications, aesthetic outcomes, and PROMs. Examinations were performed 3 years after crown placement.
Results:
After 3 years, mean MBL change was -0.02 mm (SD = 0.78) for ZrO2 and -0.04 mm (SD = 0.36) for Ti; no statistically significant difference was found (p = 0.635). One ZrO2 implant failed to osseointegrate. Clinical parameters were favourable for both implant types, although slightly higher bleeding scores were observed for ZrO2. Differences in aesthetic outcomes and PROMs were found, favoring the ZrO2 implant group. None of these differences reached statistical significance.
Conclusion And Clinical Implications:
After 3 years of function, the ZrO2 and Ti implant as applied in this study showed comparable MBL changes. Survival, clinical and aesthetic parameters, and PROMs were generally favourable and largely comparable for both groups. These short-term findings indicate that both implant types represent a viable option for clinical use in this application.
Trial Registration:
CCMO registration: NL58957.042.16.