Titanium-zirconium narrow-diameter versus titanium regular-diameter implants for anterior and premolar single crowns: 1-year results of a randomized controlled clinical study

Clinical outcomes of narrow- and regular-diameter implants with bone augmentation in the anterior maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical outcomes of narrow-diameter implants (NDIs) and regular-diameter implants (RDIs) with bone augmentation in the anterior maxilla, with implant survival rate (ISR) as the primary outcome. Additionally, secondary outcomes such as peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL), pocket probing depth (PPD), mechanical complications, and biological complications were also considered.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A thorough literature search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials and cohort studies comparing outcomes of NDIs and RDIs with bone augmentation in the anterior maxilla published up to February 2024. Only studies with a minimum follow-up period of 12 months were selected for analysis. Meta-analysis was performed if at least two articles with similar characteristics were available.

RESULTS

Of the 288 articles initially considered, 5 were included in the analysis, involving 282 NDIs and 100 RDIs. At the 36-month follow-up, no statistically significant differences in ISR, which ranged 93.8-100% for NDIs and were 100% for RDIs, were observed between the two groups (relative risk, 0.989; 95% confidence interval, 0.839-1.165; p = 0.896). Similarly, MBL and PPD did not differ significantly between the two groups. Soft tissue dehiscence was the most common complication found in RDIs.

CONCLUSION

The results indicate that NDIs yield clinical outcomes similar to those of RDIs with bone augmentation in the anterior maxilla over a 36-month follow-up period.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Considering the similar clinical outcomes, the shortened treatment duration and more rapid esthetic improvement associated with NDIs may render them preferrable to RDIs with bone augmentation, particularly in this esthetic zone.

Clinical Outcomes of Titanium Zirconium and Titanium Dental Implants under Immediate Functional Loading in Posterior Mandibular Region

BACKGROUND

Studies comparing the clinical performance of titanium zirconium (Ti-Zr) and titanium (Ti) dental implants subjected to immediate loading in the posterior mandibular region where occlusal forces are higher are sparse in the current literature. Hence, the study aimed to evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes of Ti-Zr and Ti dental implants under immediate functional loading in the mandibular posterior region.

METHODS

Forty participants fulfilling the predetermined selection criteria were randomly grouped based on dental implant used; Titanium zirconium (Ti-Zr):20, and Titanium (Ti):20. Dental implants were placed through a standard full-thickness mucoperiosteal flap approach and loaded immediately fulfilling the principle of implant protective occlusion. Clinical parameters including crestal bone loss (CBL), modified plaque index (MPI), probing depth (PD) and modified sulcular bleeding index (MSBI) were measured at baseline and follow-up visits (4, 8, and 12 months). Obtained data were compared with standard tests such as the t-test, Chi-square test, and Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

On intergroup comparison, CBL was more in the Ti-Zr group as compared to the Ti group at 4 months (0.72 ± 0.16 mm versus 0.70 ± 0.13 mm), but it was less at 8 months (1.08 ± 0.16 mm versus 1.13 ± 0.13 mm) and 12 months (1.19 ± 0.17 mm versus 1.24 ± 0.12 mm) but the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Mann-Whitney test also revealed no statistically significant difference in MPI, PD and MSBI at 4 months, 8 months and 12 months recall (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

CBL and periodontal parameters of Ti-Zr dental implants were found similar to Ti dental implants under immediate loading in the posterior mandibular region. However, further studies are needed to determine its long-term efficacy and cost-effectiveness.

Clinical outcome of narrow diameter dental implants: a 3-year retrospective study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to analyze the clinical outcome and complications of narrow-diameter dental implants (NDIs) (diameter ≤3.5 mm).

METHODS

The 274 NDIs that met the selection criteria from 2013 to 2018 were included in the retrospective study, and the survival rates (SVR) were compared. Mechanical complications included screw loosening and fractures of the implant components, such as the implant fixture, abutment, and prosthesis. In addition, marginal bone loss (MBL) was measured immediately after surgery and 1 year after loading.

RESULTS

The 3-year cumulative SVR was 92.4%. Nineteen fixtures failed during the follow-up. The failure rate was significantly higher (OR=4.573, p<0.05) in smokers and was significantly higher in osteoporosis patients (OR=3.420, p<0.05). The vertical and horizontal values of MBL were 0.33±0.32 mm and 0.18±0.17 mm, respectively. Mechanical complications included screw loosening (5.5%) and porcelain fracture (2.2%), but no fractures of the fixture or components were observed. The choice of titanium and zirconium (TiZr) alloy implant was significantly more frequent in the posterior region. Bone graft was significantly more frequently done in the anterior region.

CONCLUSIONS

According to the high SVR and stability of NDIs, the findings of the study suggest that NDIs may be a replacement for regular diameter dental implants (RDIs) and the use of TiZr alloy could extend the indication of NDIs. In the esthetic area, contour augmentation may be a reason for increasing the frequency of bone grafts.

Differences in Titanium, Titanium-Zirconium, Zirconia Implants Treatment Outcomes: a Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

Objectives

The objective of this systematic review is to test the hypothesis that treatment with titanium, titanium-zirconium and zirconia dental implants has different clinical outcomes in survival rate, marginal bone loss, bleeding on probing, plaque control record, and probing depth.

Material and Methods

A systematic electronic search through the PubMed (MEDLINE) and Cochrane Library databases was performed to identify studies published between January 1, 2013 and January 1, 2023 containing a minimum of 10 patients per study comparing titanium (Ti), titanium-zirconium (Ti-Zr), and zirconia (Zr) dental implants. Ti, Ti-Zr, and Zr dental implant clinical outcomes were determined by evaluating survival rate, marginal bone level, bleeding on probing, probing depth, plaque control record. Quality and risk-of-bias assessment were evaluated by Cochrane risk of bias tool.

Results

A total of 1361 articles were screened, with 10 meeting the inclusion criteria and being utilized for this systematic review and meta-analysis. A total of 301 patients with 637 implants (304 Ti, 134 Ti-Zr, and 199 Zr) were evaluated, showing a survival rate of 97.7% for Ti, 98.6% for Ti-Zr, and 93.8% for Zr implants respectively. In a meta-analysis, no difference in marginal bone level was found between Ti, Ti-Zr, and Zr implants (P = 0.84).

Conclusions

Dental implant survival rate was lower in zirconia group. Assessment of marginal bone loss and bleeding on probing showed better results with titanium-zirconium dental implants. Plaque control result was similar in all groups. Due to limited sample size assessed it was not possible to obtain conclusion on probing depth parameter.

Clinical outcomes of titanium-zirconium alloy narrow-diameter implants for single-crown restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Evidence is limited on whether titanium-zirconium alloy, narrow-diameter implants (Ti-Zr NDIs) have promising clinical outcomes when used to support single crowns. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate clinical evidence, including survival rates, success rates, and marginal bone loss (MBL) on Ti-Zr NDIs that support single crowns. An extensive search was performed in the databases of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies published in English up to April 2022. Only peer-reviewed clinical studies with at least 10 patients and a follow-up time of at least 12 months were included. Risk of bias in each study was assessed and data extraction was carried out independently by two reviewers. The outcome variables were survival rates, success rates, and MBL. The search returned 779 results. Eight studies were identified for qualitative analysis and seven for quantitative synthesis. Overall, a total of 256 Ti-Zr NDIs were included. Cumulative implant survival rates and success rates were 97.5% (95% confidence interval (CI): 94.5% to 98.9%) and 97.2% (95% CI: 94.2% to 98.7%), respectively, over a maximum follow-up period of 36 months, with no difference between Ti-Zr NDIs and commercial pure titanium (cpTi) implants. Cumulative mean (SD) MBL was 0.44 (0.04) mm (95% CI: 0.36 to 0.52) after one year. Meta-analysis of MBL indicated a mean difference of 0.02 mm (95% CI: -0.23 to 0.10), with no differences between Ti-Zr NDIs and cpTi implants. Short-term results of Ti-Zr NDIs for single-crown restorations are quite promising, although the number of published studies and follow-up periods are insufficient to determine the real benefit for single crowns. Long-term, follow-up clinical studies are needed to verify the excellent clinical performance of Ti-Zr NDIs.

A Novel Zirconia-Based Composite Presents an Aging Resistant Material for Narrow-Diameter Ceramic Implants

A novel ceria-stabilized zirconia-alumina-aluminate composite (Ce-TZP-comp) that is not prone to aging presents a potential alternative to yttrium-stabilized zirconia for ceramic oral implants. The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term stability of a one-piece narrow-diameter implant made of Ce-TZP-comp. Implant prototypes with a narrow (3.4 mm) and regular (4.0 mm) diameter were embedded according to ISO 14801, and subgroups (n = 8) were subsequently exposed to dynamic loading (10⁷ cycles, 98N) and/or hydrothermal treatment (aging, 85 °C). Loading/aging was only applied as a combined protocol for the 4.0 mm diameter implants. One subgroup of each diameter remained untreated. One sample was cross-sectioned from each subgroup and evaluated with a scanning electron microscope for phase-transformation of the lattice. Finally, the remaining samples were loaded to fracture. A multivariate linear regression model was applied for statistical analyses (significance at p < 0.05). All samples withstood the different loading/aging protocols and no transformation propagation was observed. The narrow diameter implants showed the lowest fracture load after combined loading/aging (628 ± 56 N; p < 0.01), whereas all other subgroups exhibited no significantly reduced fracture resistance (between 762 ± 62 and 806 ± 73 N; p > 0.05). Therefore, fracture load values of Ce-TZP-comp implants suggest a reliable intraoral clinical application in the anterior jaw regions.

A Pilot Study with Randomised Controlled Design Comparing TiZr Alloy Dental Implants to Ti Implants

Objectives

Evidence on the clinical performance of recently introduced dental implants in titanium-zirconium alloy is sparse. The aim of the present pilot study with randomized controlled design is to compare changes in supporting structures around dental titanium-zirconium alloy implants to commercially pure titanium implants.

Material and Methods

The present material includes consecutive patients referred to a specialist clinic in Sweden. Two patient groups treated with dental implants in two different materials - titanium (Ti) and titanium-zirconium (TiZr) - were defined after block randomisation for smoking. In total, 40 implants installed in 21 patients were available for one-year follow-up. Marginal bone level, soft tissue height and width of keratinised mucosa were registered at baseline and at one-year follow-up.

Results

At implant level, the test group (TiZr) yielded significant marginal bone loss (P < 0.001) after one year. Additionally, marginal bone loss after one year was significantly higher for TiZr implants (P < 0.001) as compared to traditional Ti implants. Soft tissue dimensions were stable throughout the evaluation time for both implant materials.

Conclusions

One-year results indicate more pronounced initial marginal bone loss for dental implants in titanium-zirconium alloy as compared to implants made of commercially pure titanium.

Narrow-diameter implants versus regular-diameter implants for rehabilitation of the anterior region: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate studies comparing implant survival rates, marginal bone loss (MBL), and mechanical and biological complication rates between narrow-diameter implants (NDIs) and regular-diameter implants (RDIs) used for oral rehabilitation in the anterior region. The review was conducted according to the PRISMA checklist. Two independent reviewers performed a comprehensive search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases for studies published until May 2020. A total of 843 implants (484 NDIs and 359 RDIs) were included. No significant difference in implant survival rate (risk difference (RD) 0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.01 to 0.03; P=0.34), MBL (standardised mean difference -0.51mm, 95% CI -1.29 to 0.26mm; P=0.19), mechanical complications (RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.04; P=0.40), or biological complications (RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.11; P=0.85) was found between the implant groups. Within the limitations of this study, it is concluded that NDIs are an effective alternative to RDIs due to similar survival rates, MBL, and mechanical and biological complication rates. However, future studies are highly encouraged due to the small number of interventional studies on this topic.

Longevity and marginal bone loss of narrow-diameter implants supporting single crowns: A systematic review

PURPOSE

To compare the longevity and marginal bone loss of narrow-diameter (≤3.3-mm) versus standard-diameter implants supporting single crowns.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The MEDLINE (via PubMed), Scopus, and SciELO databases were searched for relevant publications. In addition, the scientific references provided by each of the implant companies that appeared in the search were reviewed. Intervention studies comparing longevity and bone loss between narrow-diameter and standard-diameter implants were included.

RESULTS

The search was limited to in vivo studies in humans. The query returned 1931 results, of which 4 met the inclusion criteria. The implant success rate ranged from 93.8% to 100% over a maximum follow-up of 3 years, with no difference between narrow- and standard-diameter implants. Meta-analysis of all included studies showed greater bone loss in narrow-diameter implants as compared with standard ones; however, when analysis was restricted to randomized trials, no such difference was present.

CONCLUSION

The meta-analysis showed no difference in longevity between narrow implants and standard implants when supporting single crowns. However, narrow-diameter implants may be associated with greater marginal bone loss. These findings should be regarded cautiously due to the short follow-up duration and methodological heterogeneity of the primary studies.

The Clinical Performance of Narrow Diameter Implants Versus Regular Diameter Implants: A Meta-Analysis

The purpose of this study is to analyze 1- and 3-year clinical performances of narrow diameter implants (NDIs) versus regular diameter implants (RDIs). A search of electronic databases and a manual search was performed for the time period January 2000 to April 2018. A meta-regression was used to evaluate the effects of the "fixed effects" model on the implant survival rates, prosthesis success rates and marginal bone loss (MBL) with follow-up time of 1 year and 3 years. Of the 11 studies included, the overall combined 1-year implant survival rates were 98.14% for NDIs and 98.20% for RDIs. The overall combined 3-year implant survival rates were 98.71% for NDIs and 98.84% for RDIs. The corresponding values for 1-year prosthesis success rates were 96.94% for NDIs and 99.25% for RDIs. The corresponding values for 3-year prosthesis success rates were 89.25% for NDIs and 96.55% for RDIs. The meta-regression showed no significant differences between NDIs and RDIs regarding implant survival rates, prosthesis success rates, and MBL in 1-year and 3-year follow-up (P > .05). The results of this meta-analysis concluded that the implant diameter did not affect its survival rates, prosthesis success rates, and MBL in 1 and 3 years. The use of NDIs instead of bone augmentation procedures with RDIs did not affect its survival rates, prosthesis success rates, and MBL in the short-term and middle-term. However, more high-quality randomized controlled trials and long follow-up studies are needed on this topic.

Evaluation of artifacts generated by titanium, zirconium, and titanium-zirconium alloy dental implants on MRI, CT, and CBCT images: A phantom study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess artifacts generated by zirconium, titanium, and titanium-zirconium alloy implants on magnetic resonance imaging(MRI), computed tomography(CT), and cone beam computed tomography(CBCT) and to correlate the findings to the dose-area product and exposure factors on CT and CBCT.

STUDY DESIGN

Three phantoms were built by embedding zirconium, titanium, and titanium-zirconium implants in ultrasound gel. MRI, CT, and CBCT images were acquired by using multiple sequences and settings. For MRI, "artifact" was described as the length of signal void beyond the limits of the implant. For CT and CBCT, "artifact" was calculated by subtracting the gray level of the darkest pixel from the level of the lightest pixel.

RESULTS

On MRI, zirconium implants had minor distortion artifacts, whereas titanium and titanium-zirconium implants created extensive artifacts (P < .05). On CT and CBCT, artifacts were less prominent with titanium and titanium-zirconium implants compared with zirconium (P < .05). Titanium grade 5 implants with 0.3 and 0.4 mm³ voxels produced the least severe artifacts.

CONCLUSIONS

MRI images were less affected by artifacts from zirconium implants, whereas CT and CBCT images showed less severe artifacts from titanium and titanium-zirconium alloy implants. CT generated greater artifacts compared with CBCT. Larger CBCT voxel sizes reduced the dose-area product and the severity of artifacts.

Comparison of the Use of Titanium–Zirconium Alloy and Titanium Alloy in Dental Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The aim of this study was to compare the values of bone-implant contact (BIC) and removal torque (RTQ) reported in different animal studies for titanium–zirconium (TiZr) and titanium (Ti) dental implants. This review has been registered at PROSPERO under number CRD42016047745. We undertook an electronic search for data published up until November 2017 using the PubMed/Medline, Embase, and The Cochrane Library databases. Eligibility criteria included in vivo studies, comparisons between Ti and TiZr implants in the same study, and studies published in English that evaluated BIC and RTQ. After inclusion criteria, 8 studies were assessed for eligibility. Of the 8 studies, 7 analyzed BIC outcome and 3 analyzed RTQ outcome. Among such studies, 6 studies were considered for meta-analysis of quantitative for BIC and 2 studies for RTQ. There was no significant difference for BIC analysis (P = .89; random ration [RR]: −0.21; 95% confidence interval [CI]: −3.14 to 2.72). The heterogeneity of the primary outcome studies was considered low (7.19; P = .21; I2: 30%). However, the RTQ analysis showed different results favoring the TiZr dental implants (P = .001; RR: 23.62; 95%CI: 9.15 to 38.10). Low heterogeneity was observed for RTQ (χ2: 1.25; P = .26; I2: 20%). Within the limitations of this study, there was no difference between TiZr and Ti alloys implants in terms of BIC. However, TiZr implants had higher RTQ than Ti alloys.

Clinical Performance of Narrow-Diameter Titanium-Zirconium Implants: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

Implant-supported prosthetic rehabilitations are in constant augmentation in everyday dental practice. This is largely due to increasing demand from patients for fixed or implant-stabilized prosthesis, although they are frequently reticent to complex preimplant bone augmentation surgeries, whenever bone volume is lacking. Narrow-diameter implants (NDI; ≤3.5 mm) have been developed to offer relatively simple implant solutions in challenging bone-deficient sites. However, concerns regarding their mechanical properties have been raised. Special titanium-zirconium material (Ti-Zr), with superior mechanical resistance, compared with pure titanium alloys has been introduced into the market. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the available data on clinical performance of Ti-Zr NDI.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search of all available clinical articles dealing with Ti-Zr NDI has been carried out. After including only prospective clinical trials, 14 papers were retrieved for thorough reviewing.

CONCLUSION

Short-term results from preliminary clinical reports are quite promising, although the number of published studies and the follow-up periods are still insufficient to determine the real benefit of this hybrid material compared with titanium, especially when using NDI.

Implant survival and patient satisfaction of reduced diameter implants made from a titanium-zirconium alloy: A retrospective cohort study with 550 implants in 311 patients

The aim of the study was to evaluate implant survival of reduced-diameter implants compared to regular-diameter implants. A retrospective evaluation of 154 Straumann Bone Level Roxolid^® implants (diameter 3.3 mm) with SLActive^®-surface in 107 patients, which were inserted between 2009 and 2010 in private practice, was performed. The mean observation period was 22.4 ± 8.2 months. 396 Straumann SLActive^® implants (4.1 mm and 4.8 mm) in 204 patients, with an observation period of 28.4 ± 10.1 months served as control group. Implant survival rate, resonance frequency analysis and patient satisfaction were evaluated. The implant survival rate was 97.4% in the test vs. 98.5% in the control group. Resonance frequency analysis showed statistically significant lower values for the reduced-diameter implants. Patient satisfaction showed no significant difference between the test and the control group. Reduced-diameter implants displayed high survival rates during the period investigated and represent a convincing treatment alternative. Long-term follow-up investigations confirmed the high implant survival rates of 96.8% (after 69.7 ± 12.3 months) in the test group and 98.5% (after 76.0 ± 13.6 months) in the control group.

Dental Implant Length and Diameter: A Proposed Classification Scheme

PURPOSE

To propose a length-and-diameter-based classification scheme for dental implants to standardize terminology in the dental literature and communication between interested parties.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was mainly based on searching two major resources: published scientific research papers and 14 of the most popular dental implant manufacturers. Indexed databases were searched from January 2004 up to and including February 2016 using the keywords "dental implant length" and "dental implant diameter." Retrieved titles and abstracts were screened, and related full-text articles were reviewed. Full-text articles that clearly stated the terms and measurements of implants used were included and considered for proposing this classification scheme.

RESULTS

The initial search for implant diameter and length yielded 1007 and 936 articles, respectively. A total of 85 studies (41 about diameter, 44 about length) were selected and reviewed. The remaining studies (966 about diameter, 892 about length) that did not abide by the eligibility criteria were excluded. The terms "long," "short," "standard," "wide," and "narrow" were the most commonly used terms in the literature. A classification scheme for implants by diameter and length was proposed.

CONCLUSIONS

Indexed publications contain a variety of terms used by authors to describe diameter and length of dental implants without conformity and standardization. The classification scheme proposed in this article could serve as a reference for interested parties.

One-year follow-up of titanium/zirconium alloy X commercially pure titanium narrow-diameter implants placed in the molar region of the mandible: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To analyze marginal bone loss (MBL) and clinical parameters around narrow-diameter implants (NDIs - 3.3 mm) made of titanium/zirconium alloy (TiZr) in comparison with commercially pure titanium (cpTi) installed in the molar region of the mandible after 1 year in function.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ten patients participated in the study. A TiZr and a cpTi NDI were randomly installed in contralateral molar sites of the mandible of each patient in a split-mouth design. Eight weeks after healing, all metal-ceramic single crowns were adapted to the implants and patients were enrolled in a plaque control program. MBL at the mesial and distal aspects of the implants were evaluated by comparing periapical radiographs taken immediately after prosthesis installation (T1) and 1 year after loading (T2). Clinical probing depth, bleeding on probing, suppuration, visible plaque and implant mobility were evaluated to determine implant success and survival rates.

RESULTS

Mean MBL at the interproximal aspects of TiZr implant sites was 0.32 ± 0.27 mm, while at cpTi implant sites mean MBL was 0.35 ± 0.24 mm (P = 0.60). Both TiZr and cpTi NDIs presented 100% implant survival and success rates, with no significant differences in the clinical parameters studied (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

TiZr and cpTi NDIs presented similar outcomes after 1 year in function in the molar region of the mandible. The results suggest that TiZr and cpTi NDIs may be equally used to support single crowns in the posterior area of the mouth. However, further studies with longer follow-up periods are necessary to confirm these findings.

In vitro assessment of artifacts induced by titanium, titanium-zirconium and zirconium dioxide implants in cone-beam computed tomography

AIM

The aim of this study was to test whether or not the intensity of artifacts around implants in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) differs between titanium, titanium-zirconium and zirconium dioxide implants.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty models of a human mandible, each containing one implant in the single-tooth gap position 45, were cast in dental stone. Five test models were produced for each of the following implant types: titanium 4.1 mm diameter (Ti4.1 ), titanium 3.3 mm diameter (Ti3.3 ), titanium-zirconium 3.3 mm diameter (TiZr3.3 ) and zirconium dioxide 3.5-4.5 mm diameter (ZrO3.5-4.5 ) implants. For control purposes, three models without implants were produced. Each model was scanned using a CBCT device. Gray values (GV) were recorded at eight circumferential positions around the implants at 0.5 mm, 1 mm and 2 mm from the implant surface (GVT est ). GV were assessed in the corresponding volumes of interest (VOI) in the control models without implants (GVC ontrol ). Differences of gray values (ΔGV) between GVT est and GVC ontrol were calculated as percentages. One-way ANOVA and post hoc tests were applied to detect differences between implant types.

RESULTS

Mean ΔGV for ZrO3.5-4.5 presented the highest absolute values, generally followed by TiZr3.3 , Ti4.1 and Ti3.3 implants. The differences of ΔGV between ZrO3.5-4.5 and the remaining groups were statistically significant in the majority of the VOI (P ≤ 0.0167). ΔGV for TiZr3.3 , Ti4.1 and Ti3.3 implants did not differ significantly in the most VOI. For all implant types, ΔGV showed positive values buccally, mesio-buccally, lingually and disto-lingually, whereas negative values were detected mesially and distally.

CONCLUSIONS

Zirconium dioxide implants generate significantly more artifacts as compared to titanium and titanium-zirconium implants. The intensity of artifacts around zirconium dioxide implants exhibited in average the threefold in comparison with titanium implants.