Table 2.
Main results of individual included studies.
| Authors | Groups | Outcomes | Main Results |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bienz et al. [9] | Zirconia dental implant groups vs. Titanium dental implant group; A half with oral hygiene and another one with no oral hygiene for 3 weeks |
Plaque control | 68.3 ± 31.9% vs. 75.0 ± 29.4% |
| (BoP) | 21.7 ± 23.6% vs. 32.5 ± 27.8% | ||
| Histology | Number of inflammatory cells not significantly differ | ||
| Patil et al. [33] | Single retained overdenture with titanium zirconium dental implant vs. overdenture with 2 titanium zirconium dental implant retention | Crestal bone loss 1 month | 0.39 mm vs. 0.23 mm |
| Crestal bone loss 1 year | 0.88 mm vs. 0.67 mm | ||
| VAS on patients satisfaction 1 month | 49.7% vs. 54.8% | ||
| VAS on patients satisfaction 1 year | 54.5% vs. 58.9% | ||
| Koller et al. [34] | Zirconia dental implants vs. titanium dental implants | PI | 11.07% vs. 15.20% |
| BoP | 16.43% vs. 12.60% | ||
| PES | 11.11 vs. 11.56 | ||
| MBL | 1.38 mm vs. 1.17 mm | ||
| Payer et al. [35] | Zirconia dental implants vs. titanium dental implants | Radiographic bone levels | 1.48mm vs. 1.43 mm |
| BoP | 9.1% vs. 7.4% | ||
| PI | 19.38 vs. 16.05 | ||
| PES | 11.22 vs. missing | ||
| Implants stability | –2.5 for all | ||
| Clinical evaluation | Missing vs. 10.75 | ||
| Müller et al. [36] | Titanium-zirconium vs. Titanium grade IV dental implants | Survival rate | 98.9% vs. 97.8% |
| Crestal bone level changes | 0.60 mm vs. 0.61 mm | ||
| Success rate | 95.8% vs. 02.6% | ||
| Ioannidis et al. [37] | Titanium-zirconium vs. Titanium dental implants | Survival rate | 100% vs. 100% |
| MBL | 0.04 mm vs. 0.01 mm | ||
| FMPS | 4% vs. 11% | ||
| BoP | 13.8% vs. 20% | ||
| Papilla levels | — | ||
| Osman et al. [38] | Zirconia vs. titanium dental implants | Survival rate | 90.9% vs. 95.8% |
| MBL | 0.18 mm vs. 0.42 mm | ||
| Osman et al. [39] | Zirconia vs. titanium dental implants | Success rate | Missing |
| Prosthodontic maintenance events | 45 vs. 34 | ||
| Al-Nawas [40] | Zirconium-titanium vs. titanium dental implants | MBL | 0.34 mm vs. 0.31 mm |
| Survival rate | 98.9% vs. 97.8% | ||
| Success rate | 96.6% vs. 94.4% | ||
| Cannizzaro et al. [41] | Non-occlusal loading zirconia dental implants vs. conventional loading zirconia dental implants | Success rate | Missing |
| MBL | 0.7 mm vs. 0.9 mm |