How to read this. A study reflects the patients, time period and definitions it used. Survival figures from different studies cannot be compared as if they were a head-to-head test. Manufacturer statements are labelled separately from independent research throughout this site.
Surfaces: SLA and SLActive
Independent clinical studyRetrospective cohort, 10 years
10-year survival and success rates of 511 titanium implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface
Buser D et al. · Clin Implant Dent Relat Res · 2012 · PubMed 22897683 · DOI
What it found: Of 511 SLA implants in 303 patients, 6 (1.2%) were lost over 10 years: 98.8% survival and 97.0% success. Peri-implantitis prevalence over 10 years was 1.8%.
Limitations: Single university centre; orally healthy patients with regular maintenance; retrospective design.
Systematic reviewSystematic review of in-vitro studies
Macrophage inflammatory response to hydrophobic and hydrophilic SLA titanium surfaces
Donohoe E et al. · Clin Exp Dent Res · 2023 · PubMed 36991526 · DOI
What it found: Across 8 laboratory studies, SLActive surfaces were associated with lower pro-inflammatory and higher anti-inflammatory signalling from immune cells than SLA.
Limitations: In-vitro only; low-to-moderate study quality; does not show clinical outcomes in patients.
Material: Roxolid® (titanium–zirconium)
Independent clinical studyDouble-blind randomised controlled trial, 12 months
Titanium-13Zirconium versus titanium grade IV small-diameter bone level implants in edentulous mandibles
Al-Nawas B et al. · Clin Implant Dent Relat Res · 2012 · PubMed 21414131 · DOI
What it found: In 91 patients, bone-level change, plaque and bleeding did not differ between TiZr and titanium implants; survival 98.9% vs 97.8%.
Limitations: 12-month follow-up; overdenture setting in the lower jaw; study involved the manufacturer's implants.
Systematic reviewSystematic review and meta-analysis
Survival of titanium-zirconium vs commercially pure titanium narrow-diameter implants
Iegami CM et al. · Clin Implant Dent Relat Res · 2017 · PubMed 28853215 · DOI
What it found: Six studies: no significant difference in 1-year survival or bone loss between TiZr and titanium narrow implants.
Limitations: Few studies; 1-year follow-up.
Systematic reviewSystematic review and meta-analysis
Titanium-zirconium narrow-diameter implants for single crowns
Cao R et al. · Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg · 2023 · PubMed 37331853 · DOI
What it found: 256 TiZr narrow implants: 97.5% survival and 97.2% success over up to 36 months, with no difference from titanium implants.
Limitations: Eight studies; follow-up up to 3 years; authors call results promising but limited.
Tissue-level implants
Independent clinical studyRetrospective radiographic study, 10 years
Retrospective study of 1692 Straumann tissue-level implants over 10 years
Kim S et al. · Clin Implant Dent Relat Res · 2018 · PubMed 30110515 · DOI
What it found: 10-year cumulative survival 98.23% (implant level) and 95.70% (patient level). Survival related to diameter, length, site and insertion torque.
Limitations: Retrospective; single institution.
Long-term outcomes in practice
Independent clinical studyRetrospective cohort, up to 10 years
4,591 Straumann implants placed in 2,060 patients in private practice
French D et al. · Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants · 2016 · PubMed 27861661 · DOI
What it found: Bone loss was minimal for most implants, but 5% showed more than 2.28 mm bone loss by 8–10 years. Heavier bleeding around implants correlated with more bone loss.
Limitations: Retrospective; single private practice.
Zygomatic implants
Consensus / guidelineITI consensus report based on systematic reviews
ITI consensus report on zygomatic implants
Al-Nawas B et al. · Int J Implant Dent · 2023 · PubMed 37698775 · DOI
What it found: Mean zygomatic implant survival 96.2% over a mean 6.3 years; immediate loading associated with higher survival than delayed loading; sinusitis prevalence 14.2%.
Limitations: Pooled data across systems and techniques; not specific to one manufacturer.
Ceramic (zirconia) implants
Systematic reviewSystematic review and meta-analysis
Survival and success of zirconia compared with titanium implants
Padhye NM et al. · Clin Oral Investig · 2023 · PubMed 37740825 · DOI
What it found: Compares zirconia with titanium implants across published studies; see the review for outcome-specific results.
Limitations: Smaller and shorter evidence base for zirconia than for titanium.
Systematic reviewSystematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs
Zirconia versus titanium dental implants: meta-analysis of randomised trials
Morena D et al. · J Clin Med · 2024 · PubMed 39124755 · DOI
What it found: Pools randomised trials comparing zirconia and titanium implants; see the review for endpoint-specific findings.
Limitations: Limited number of RCTs; relatively short follow-up.
Loading & immediacy
Consensus / guidelineITI consensus report
Group 5 ITI Consensus Report: Implant placement and loading protocols
Morton D et al. · Clin Oral Implants Res · 2023 · PubMed 37750529 · DOI
What it found: Sets out when immediate placement and loading protocols may be considered, based on clinical factors such as primary stability, site and restoration.
Limitations: Consensus statements reflect the evidence available at the time of the workshop.
Short implants
Systematic reviewSystematic review of RCTs with meta-analysis
Short (≤6 mm) compared with ≥10 mm implants in different clinical scenarios
Ravidà A et al. · J Clin Periodontol · 2024 · PubMed 38764386 · DOI
What it found: Compares short implants with longer implants (often combined with bone augmentation) across clinical scenarios, with quality-of-evidence grading.
Limitations: Results differ by scenario; see the review for details.
Maintenance & peri-implant health
Consensus / guidelineS3-level clinical practice guideline
Prevention and treatment of peri-implant diseases — EFP S3 guideline
Herrera D et al. · J Clin Periodontol · 2023 · PubMed 37271498 · DOI
What it found: Recommends prevention through oral hygiene, regular supportive care and management of risk factors such as smoking and a history of periodontitis.
Limitations: Guideline; recommendations graded by strength of evidence.
Connections
Systematic reviewSystematic review and meta-analysis (45,347 implants)
Implant-abutment connections, survival and marginal bone change
Schoenbaum TR et al. · Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants · 2023 · PubMed 37436948 · DOI
What it found: Compares connection types across a large body of implant data for survival and marginal bone change.
Limitations: Heterogeneous studies; connection type is one of many variables.
Summaries are based on the published abstracts and were written by our editorial team; clinical review is pending. Funding and conflicts of interest are reported in the original papers.
