Browsing by Author "Fernandes, Paulo Rafael Esteves"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- Clinical performance comparing titanium and titanium–zirconium or zirconia dental implantsPublication . Fernandes, Paulo Rafael Esteves; Otero, Ada Isis Pelaez; Fernandes, Juliana Campos Hasse; Nassani, Leonardo Mohamad; Castilho, Rogerio Moraes; Fernandes, Gustavo Vicentis de OliveiraObjectives: This study aimed to compare clinical results between titanium (Ti), zirconia (Zr), or titanium–zirconium (TZ) dental implants and to analyze survival rate (SR), bleeding on probing (BoP), marginal bone loss (MBL), and/or probing depth (PD). Data source: Manual and electronic searches were conducted (PubMed and Web of Science) to identify randomized controlled trials that compared the outcomes of at least two implant types (control and test group) within the same study. The focused question was determined according to the PICOT strategy. Seven studies were included out of 202 research studies initially found. The follow-up periods ranged from 12 to 80 months, and the mean age was from 43.3 to 65.8 years old. The SR for Ti, TZ, and Zr implants ranged from 92.6% to 100%, 95.8% to 100%, and 87.5% to 91.25%, respectively; MBL for Ti, TZ, and Zr implants varied from −1.17 mm to −0.125 mm for Ti, −0.6 mm to −0.32 mm for TZ, and −0.25 mm to −1.38 mm for Zr. Studies showed a low incidence of mucositis and peri-implantitis; however, BoP for Zr was 16.43%, Ti ranged between 10% and 20%, and TZ from 10% to 13.8%. PD for Ti ranged from 1.6 mm to 3.05 mm, TZ was 3.12 mm (only one study), and Zr ranged from 2.21 mm to 2.6 mm. Conclusion: All three types of implants showed similar tissue behavior. However, the TZ group had better results when compared with Ti and Zr for SR, MBL, and BoP, except for PD. Furthermore, the worst SR was found in the Zr implants group.
- Comparing the results among zirconia, titanium-zirconium, and titanium dental implants : a systematic review of randomized controlled trialsPublication . Fernandes, Paulo Rafael Esteves; Fernandes, Gustavo Vicentis de Oliveira; Romanos, GeorgeObjectives: The objective of this systematic review was to compare within the literature if titanium and titanium-zirconium implants show differences, when evaluated soft and hard tissue, compared to zirconia implants. Material and methods: The searches were electronically performed (PubMed and Web of Science) and by hand, in October 2020, to identify randomized controlled trials comparing either zirconia implants with titanium or titaniumzirconia implants. The focused question was determined according to PICOT strategy. Results: A total of 7 studies were included from a total of 202 articles initially found, which 4 of them were duplicates and 198 titles were screened and 191 of them excluded. The follow-up periods ranged from 12 months to 80 months and the mean age from 43.3 to 65.8. The survival rate for titanium implants ranged from 92.6% to 100% and for titanium-zirconium implants from 95.8% to 100%, whereas zirconia implants ranged from 87.5% to 91.25%. The mean marginal bone loss for titanium implants ranged from -1.17mm to -0.125mm, for titaniumzirconium implants from -0.6mm to -0.32mm, and for zirconia implants from - 0.25mm to -1.38mm. Regarding mucositis and peri-implantitis, the studies showed little incidence. For bleeding on probing, it was evaluated for zirconia implants a 16.43%, while for titanium implants ranged between 10% and 20% and for titanium-zirconium implants 10% to 13.8%. Probing-in-depth for titanium implants ranged from 1.6mm to 3.05mm, for zirconia implants ranged from 2.21mm to 2.6mm and for titanium-zirconium evaluated probing in depth recording 3.12mm. Regarding the diameters of implants, all types were used (narrow, regular, and wide). Conclusion: All three types of implants showed similar soft and hard tissue response and behavior, except for the survival rate involving the zirconia implants, which had the lowest value.