Clinical behavior of two-piece zirconia implants. A systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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 it