Biology of reproduction · 2023
Correction to: Transcriptomic analysis of testis and epididymis tissues from Banna mini-pig inbred line boars with single-molecule long-read sequencing.
Опубликованное исправлениеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Apaza Alccayhuaman Karol Ali, Zandinejad Amirali, Beltrao Rodrigo, Schick Fabian, Rohr Nadja
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the incidence of biological complications and peri-implant soft tissue outcomes between zirconia and titanium implants under controlled clinical conditions within the included studies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic searches were performed in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science up to October 2025, complemented by manual screening. Comparative clinical studies evaluating zirconia and titanium implants with at least 12 months of follow-up were included. The primary outcome was the incidence of biological complications (peri-implant mucositis or peri-implantitis). Secondary outcomes included bleeding on probing (BoP), plaque index (PI), probing pocket depth (PPD), and pink esthetic score (PES). Random effects meta-analyses were performed. The risk of bias was assessed based on the study design, and the certainty of evidence was graded using the GRADE approach.
RESULTS: From 3,646 records, six studies (five randomized controlled trials and one cross-sectional study; 354 implants in total) met the inclusion criteria. Three studies (12-60 months of follow-up) reporting biological complications found no significant differences between zirconia and titanium implants (RR = 0.95; 95% CI: 0.80-1.12). At 12 months, pooled analyses showed a higher bleeding on probing around zirconia implants (MD = 4.72; 95% CI: 0.90-8.54; p = 0.02); however, this difference was not accompanied by PI (MD = 0.41; 95% CI: -1.98-2.80), PPD (MD = -0.16; 95% CI: -0.45-0.13), or PES (MD = 0.06; 95% CI: -0.41-0.54). Heterogeneity across outcomes was low (I² < 40%). The overall risk of bias ranged from low to moderate. Certainty of evidence was moderate for biological complications and low for BoP, PI, PPD, and PES.
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of the available evidence, zirconia and titanium implants demonstrate comparable biological performance in terms of peri-implant tissue health and the incidence of biological complications. Zirconia implants exhibited an isolated increase in BoP at 12 months; however, this difference was not accompanied by changes in the other peri-implant parameters or biological complications. The biological and clinical significance of this finding remains uncertain and warrants further investigation. Further long-term, adequately powered RCTs with standardized outcome reporting are needed to clarify the long-term biological performance of both materials.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic searches were performed in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science up to October 2025, complemented by manual screening. Comparative clinical studies evaluating zirconia and titanium implants with at least 12 months of follow-up were included. The primary outcome was the incidence of biological complications (peri-implant mucositis or peri-implantitis). Secondary outcomes included bleeding on probing (BoP), plaque index (PI), probing pocket depth (PPD), and pink esthetic score (PES). Random effects meta-analyses were performed. The risk of bias was assessed based on the study design, and the certainty of evidence was graded using the GRADE approach.
RESULTS: From 3,646 records, six studies (five randomized controlled trials and one cross-sectional study; 354 implants in total) met the inclusion criteria. Three studies (12-60 months of follow-up) reporting biological complications found no significant differences between zirconia and titanium implants (RR = 0.95; 95% CI: 0.80-1.12). At 12 months, pooled analyses showed a higher bleeding on probing around zirconia implants (MD = 4.72; 95% CI: 0.90-8.54; p = 0.02); however, this difference was not accompanied by PI (MD = 0.41; 95% CI: -1.98-2.80), PPD (MD = -0.16; 95% CI: -0.45-0.13), or PES (MD = 0.06; 95% CI: -0.41-0.54). Heterogeneity across outcomes was low (I² < 40%). The overall risk of bias ranged from low to moderate. Certainty of evidence was moderate for biological complications and low for BoP, PI, PPD, and PES.
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of the available evidence, zirconia and titanium implants demonstrate comparable biological performance in terms of peri-implant tissue health and the incidence of biological complications. Zirconia implants exhibited an isolated increase in BoP at 12 months; however, this difference was not accompanied by changes in the other peri-implant parameters or biological complications. The biological and clinical significance of this finding remains uncertain and warrants further investigation. Further long-term, adequately powered RCTs with standardized outcome reporting are needed to clarify the long-term biological performance of both materials.