Clinical behavior of two-piece zirconia implants. A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This systematic review aimed to evaluate the clinical behavior of two-piece zirconia implants (T-PZI) in terms of overall implant survival and success rates, marginal bone loss (MBL) complication rates, and others biological parameters. MATERIAL AND METHODS: PRISMA guidelines were followed, and the review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). An automated search was conducted in four databases (Medline/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library), as well as a manual search for relevant clinical articles published until 18 May 2024. The review included human studies with at least five patients in which T-PZI were placed. Quality of evidence was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale and the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials version 2 (RoB 2). RESULTS: Six studies met the inclusion criteria and were included for analysis, with a total of 298 T-PZI. A survival rate of 96.31% was recorded with follow-up periods ranging from 18.4±10.4 months to 111.1±2.2 months. The success rate ranged from 63 to 100% and MBL ranged from 0.130.6 to 1.38±0.81mm Conclusions: T-PZI may offer a reliable alternative to titanium dental implants, achieving a survival rate of 96.31%, acceptable rates of MBL and adequate biological parameters. However, the findings of the review must be treated with caution, as the data obtained are derived from the early stages of this new development in ceramic dental implants. More comparative studies are needed in order to determine the viability of T-PZI in different clinical situations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".