Alqahtani Saeed M, Chaturvedi Saurabh, Alkhurays Mohammed, Al Mansoori Mohammed Abdullah, Mehta Vini, Chaturvedi Mudita
Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, 62529, Abha, Saudi Arabia.
Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, SPDC, DMIHER (DU), Wardha, Maharashtra, 422001, India.
Eur J Med Res. 2025 Apr 15;30(1):290. doi: 10.1186/s40001-025-02488-5.
Nowadays dental implants are commonly used and to fulfil esthetic demands, zirconia has been suggested as an implant material as an alternative to titanium. Many researchers and systematic reviews are documented on it, but the results have been often inconsistent. This overview of systematic reviews aimed to report on the factors that influence the clinical effectiveness of zirconia (Zi) versus titanium (Ti) dental implants in anterior region.
This overview of systematic reviews (Registration Number CRD42023396206) is in accordance with the Transparent Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, Embase and Google Scholar databases were sourced for systematic review and meta-analyses. Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) criteria and Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews" (AMSTAR-2), evaluated the quality. The PICO-focused question of this overview of systematic reviews was "What are the various factors influencing the clinical performance of Zi versus Ti implants in the anterior area?", Evaluations were assessed by two assessors. In case there was any uncertainty or dispute among the reviewers, the work was included for further screening. Using Cohen's kappa, the inter-reviewer reliability was evaluated.
Six reviews were chosen from 57 suitable reviews for this data analysis. Although the survival and effectiveness rates backed titanium implants, there was no conclusive proof of marginal bone loss. Zirconium implants performed better in terms of aesthetics.
Clinical performance of zirconia could be considered at par with titanium implants in the anterior area. Titanium has exhibited greater mechanical performance but no significant difference between two recorded. In future, studies with improved design are needed to identify biological and technical factors that affect implant's efficacy.
This is the first overview of systematic reviews focusing specifically on the anterior region, evaluates both aesthetic and biomechanical performance of Zi and Ti Implants, offers detailed insight into material-specific advantages and limitations. In the present clinical scenario it addresses a critical gap by comparing the performance of Zi and Ti implants and evaluates patient-centred priorities, particularly in the highly visible anterior region.
如今，牙科植入物被广泛使用，为满足美学需求，氧化锆已被提议作为一种替代钛的植入材料。许多研究人员对此进行了研究并发表了系统评价，但结果往往不一致。本系统评价概述旨在报告影响前牙区氧化锆（Zi）与钛（Ti）牙科植入物临床效果的因素。
本系统评价概述（注册号CRD42023396206）符合系统评价和Meta分析的透明报告标准。通过检索PubMed、Cochrane、Scopus、Embase和谷歌学术数据库获取系统评价和Meta分析。采用乔安娜·布里格斯研究所（JBI）标准和评估系统评价的测量工具（AMSTAR-2）评估质量。本系统评价概述的聚焦PICO问题是“影响前牙区Zi与Ti植入物临床性能的各种因素有哪些？”，由两名评估人员进行评估。如果评审人员之间存在任何不确定性或争议，则将该研究纳入进一步筛选。使用科恩kappa系数评估评审人员间的可靠性。
从57篇合适的综述中选取6篇进行数据分析。尽管钛植入物的生存率和有效率更高，但没有确凿证据表明存在边缘骨丢失。氧化锆植入物在美学方面表现更好。
在前牙区，氧化锆的临床性能可被认为与钛植入物相当。钛表现出更好的机械性能，但两者之间没有显著差异。未来，需要设计改进的研究来确定影响植入物疗效的生物学和技术因素。
这是第一篇专门聚焦前牙区的系统评价概述，评估了Zi和Ti植入物的美学和生物力学性能，详细洞察了材料特定的优势和局限性。在当前临床情况下，它通过比较Zi和Ti植入物的性能填补了关键空白，并评估了以患者为中心的优先事项，特别是在高度显眼的前牙区。
