RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate esthetic parameters in the anterior maxillary region by comparing single-piece zirconia versus titanium narrow-diameter implants. Additionally, clinical, radiological and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were analyzed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty implants (tissue level implant) were placed in 30 patients in the maxillary esthetic sector. Depending on randomization, a zirconia (test) or titanium implant (control) was placed. Esthetic, clinical, and radiological parameters, including the implant crown esthetic index (ICAI), pink esthetic score (PES), probing pocket depth, bleeding on probing, plaque index, and marginal bone levels, were evaluated at 12, 36 and 60 months after loading. RESULTS: Sixty months after crown placement, no significant differences were found between groups. The ICAI values were 5.25 ± 4.21 and 4.50 ± 2.98 for the test and control groups, respectively. The corresponding PES values were 7.44 ± 1.93 and 7.43 ± 1.74 for the test and control groups, respectively. There were no significant intergroup differences for the rest of the parameters evaluated. CONCLUSION: It can be suggested that monotype zirconia implants may serve as a potential alternative to titanium implants in selected clinical scenarios. While the results demonstrated comparable esthetic, clinical, and radiological aspects for zirconia implants as compared to titanium implants after a 5-year follow-up period, further research with larger sample sizes and longer-term follow-up is recommended.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to compare ceramic and titanium implants with respect to the esthetic and clinical parameters, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty patients received thirty implants (8-12 mm in length, 3.3 mm diameter, and a tissue level design) to replace single teeth in the anterior maxilla. Patients were randomly allocated to receive a ceramic or a titanium implant. Esthetic, clinical parameters, and PROMs were evaluated 18 months after surgery. RESULTS: At 12 months post-final loading, there were no significant differences between groups with respect to esthetics. Mean Index Crown Aesthetic score was 6.31 (95% C.I. 4.59-8.04) and 6.07 (95% C.I. 4.21-7.93) for ceramic and titanium implants, respectively. The pink esthetic score (PES) was 7.81 (95% C.I. 6.90-8.73) for ceramic implants and 7.86 (95% C.I. 7.11-8.60) for titanium implants, with no significant differences between groups. No statistically significant differences were found for any of the other clinical parameters and PROMs. CONCLUSIONS: Monotype ceramic implants have proven to be a good treatment option in the upper anterior sector, showing favorable esthetic results, being comparable to titanium implants. This clinical trial has been registered in clinical trials with the identifier CI_RCT_US16 and registration number NCT04707677. A retrospective registration of the clinical trial was carried out since registration was not mandatory on the date the study began.