MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408552651 · doi:10.1111/cid.70026

Ten‐Year Survival of Single Implants With Veneered Porcelain on Zirconia or Titanium Abutments: A Retrospective Analysis

2025· article· en· W4408552651 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Julia Olander, Victoria Franke Stenport

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersVästra Götalandsregionen
KeywordsAbutmentDentistryImplantTitaniumCubic zirconiaDental AbutmentsMedicineMucositisMaterials scienceOrthodonticsSurgeryComposite materialChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the technical and biological complications of single implants with veneered porcelain on either titanium or zirconia abutments after 10 years in function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All single-implant surgeries performed at a specialist prosthodontic clinic between 2011 and 2013 were reviewed. After applying the inclusion criteria, 174 implants in 132 patients were included for further analysis. Marginal bone loss relative to baseline and technical complications, including porcelain fractures, were recorded from patient data. RESULTS: A total of 65 patients with 87 implants were followed until the 10-year evaluation, including 29 implants connected to a veneered zirconia abutment and 58 to a veneered titanium abutment. One implant with a zirconia abutment was lost due to peri-implantitis after 7 years, while all other implants survived. Marginal bone loss did not differ significantly between the two abutment groups. At 10 years, implants with titanium abutments showed a mean marginal bone loss of 0.31 mm, whereas implants with zirconia abutments had a mean marginal bone loss of 0.28 mm. Peri-implant mucositis was observed in 34% of implants with zirconia abutments, compared to 16% of those with titanium abutments. Technical complications were noted in 10.3% of the implants at the 10-year follow-up. The most common complication was the chipping of the veneering porcelain, followed by abutment screw loosening. CONCLUSION: Implant survival did not differ significantly between the two veneered abutment materials. Both abutment types exhibited low marginal bone loss at the 10-year follow-up. However, peri-implant mucositis was more frequently observed around zirconia abutments. Technical complications were moderate, primarily presenting as chipping of the veneering porcelain. The success rate for implants with zirconia abutments was 93%, compared to 82% for those with titanium abutments.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.359 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research→Same topicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→