Background: Zirconia might be an alternative material to titanium for dental implant fabrication. The aim of the present study was to investigate the histological behavior (osseointegration) of loaded zirconia implants in an animal model and to compare it with the behavior of titanium implants.Methods: Five months after extraction of the upper anterior teeth, 12 custom‐made titanium implants (control group) and 12 custom‐made zirconia implants (test group) were inserted in the extraction sites in six monkeys. Before insertion, the titanium implant surfaces were sandblasted with Al₂O₃ and subsequently acid‐etched. The zirconia implants were only sandblasted. Six months following implant insertion, impressions were taken for the fabrication of single crowns. A further 3 months later, nonprecious metal crowns were inserted. Five months after insertion of the crowns, the implants with the surrounding hard and soft tissues were harvested, histologically prepared, and evaluated under the light microscope regarding the peri‐implant soft tissue dimensions and mineralized bone‐to‐implant contact.Results: No implant was lost during the investigational period. The mean height of the soft peri‐implant tissue cuff was 5 mm around the titanium implants and 4.5 mm around the zirconia implants. No statistically significant differences were found in the extent of the different soft tissue compartments. The mean mineralized bone‐to‐implant contact after 9 months of healing and 5 months of loading amounted to 72.9% (SD: 14%) for the titanium implants and to 67.4% (SD: 17%) for the zirconia implants. There was no statistically significant difference between the different implant materials.Conclusion: Within the limits of this animal experiment, it can be concluded that the custom‐made zirconia implants osseointegrated to the same extent as custom‐made titanium control implants and show the same peri‐implant soft tissue dimensions. J Periodontol 2004;75:1262‐1268.

To determine the survival rate and marginal bone loss (MBL) of zirconia dental implants restored with single crowns or fixed dental prostheses. An electronic search was conducted up to November 2015 (without any restriction regarding the publication time) through the databases MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Library, and EMBASE to identify randomized controlled clinical trials and prospective clinical trials including >15 patients. Primary outcomes were survival rate and MBL. Furthermore, the influence of several covariates on MBL was evaluated. Qualitative assessment and statistical analyses were performed. This review was conducted according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for systematic reviews. With the applied search strategy, 4,196 titles could be identified. After a screening procedure, 2 randomized controlled clinical trials and 7 prospective clinical trials remained for analyses. In these trials, a total of 326 patients received 398 implants. The follow-up ranged from 12 to 60 mo. Implant loss was mostly reported within the first year, especially within the healing period. Thereafter, nearly constant survival curves could be observed. Therefore, separate meta-analyses were performed for the first and subsequent years, resulting in an implant survival rate of 95.6% (95% confidence interval: 93.3% to 97.9%) after 12 mo and, thereafter, an expected decrease of 0.05% per year (0.25% after 5 y). Additionally, a meta-analysis was conducted for the mean MBL after 12 mo, resulting in 0.79 mm (95% confidence interval: 0.73 to 0.86 mm). Implant bulk material and design, restoration type, and the application of minor augmentation procedures during surgery, as well as the modes of temporization and loading, had no statistically significant influence on MBL. The short-term cumulative survival rates and the MBL of zirconia implants in the presented systematic review are promising. However, additional data are still needed to confirm the long-term predictability of these implants.

Objective: To assess the survival, failure, and complication rates of veneered and monolithic all‐ceramic implant‐supported single crowns (SCs).Methods: Literature search was conducted in Medline (PubMed), Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials until September 2020 for randomized, prospective, and retrospective clinical trials with follow‐up time of at least 1 year, evaluating the outcome of veneered and/or monolithic all‐ceramic SCs supported by titanium dental implants. Survival and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poisson's regression models.Results: Forty‐nine RCTs and prospective studies reporting on 57 material cohorts were included. Meta‐analysis of the included studies indicated an estimated 3‐year survival rate of veneered‐reinforced glass‐ceramic implant‐supported SCs of 97.6% (95% CI: 87.0%–99.6%). The estimated 3‐year survival rates were 97.0% (95% CI: 94.0%–98.5%) for monolithic‐reinforced glass‐ceramic implant SCs, 96.9% (95% CI: 93.4%–98.6%) for veneered densely sintered alumina SCs, 96.3% (95% CI: 93.9%–97.7%) for veneered zirconia SCs, 96.1% (95% CI: 93.4%–97.8%) for monolithic zirconia SCs and only 36.3% (95% CI: 0.04%–87.7%) for resin‐matrix‐ceramic (RMC) SCs. With the exception of RMC SCs (p < 0.0001), the differences in survival rates between the materials did not reach statistical significance. Veneered SCs showed significantly (p = 0.017) higher annual ceramic chipping rates (1.65%) compared with monolithic SCs (0.39%). The location of the SCs, anterior vs. posterior, did not influence survival and chipping rates.Conclusions: With the exception of RMC SCs, veneered and monolithic implant‐supported ceramic SCs showed favorable short‐term survival and complication rates. Significantly higher rates for ceramic chipping, however, were reported for veneered compared with monolithic ceramic SCs.