.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
Return
No clear differences in long-term clinical success among zirconia, titanium, and PEEK implant abutments
.png){kind=icon}
PRE
AI
A
T
W
DOI：10.1016/j.jebdp.2026.102308.png)
.png){kind=icon}
Original request for help.png){kind=icon}
Share.png){kind=icon}
Save
Abstract
En 中文
A systematic search was performed across MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, CENTRAL, and Scopus up to May 7, 2025, using a uniform search strategy without filters. Randomized and non-randomized clinical trials evaluating zirconia, PEEK, and titanium implant abutments in patients with implants were included, focusing on survival rate, soft tissue discoloration, technical complications, marginal bone loss, papillary index, plaque index, probing depth, and bleeding on probing, while non-clinical, experimental, and descriptive studies were excluded. Study selection and data extraction were independently carried out by two reviewers using Rayyan and standardized Excel forms, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer or expert consultation, and inter-reviewer agreement assessed using Cohen’s kappa coefficient.
Keywords:
zirconia
titanium
PEEK
implant abutments
clinical success
Journal
IF:
4
Papers:
977
Citations:
1.6K
Organization
Cited Papers