← Daily Brief
The Bell BriefFrom Dr. Jennifer Bell, DDS
HIGHResearchTier 1

Monolithic Zirconia Versus Porcelain‐Fused‐to‐Metal Implant‐Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses in the Posterior Region: 3‐Year Results of a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

SourceClinical Oral Implants ResearchTier 1Peer-Reviewed Research

By Aspasia Pachiou, Raphael Singh, Ronald E. Jung, Marc Balmer, Goran I. Benic, Alexis Ioannidis

Originally at onlinelibrary.wiley.com

Summary & scoring by The Bell Brief (Dr. Jennifer Bell) using the Drill-Down Protocol (Drill-Down Score) — not the original publisher.

Why it matters for dental

Posterior implant-supported prostheses made of monolithic zirconia show comparable 3-year survival and complication rates to porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) restorations, giving practice owners and specialists evidence-based material choices that affect lab fees, chair time, and long-term maintenance revenue.

Key points

  • Randomized controlled trial published in Clinical Oral Implants Research (EarlyView) reports 3-year data for monolithic zirconia vs. PFM posterior FDPs on implants.
  • Primary outcomes tracked were prosthesis survival, biologic complications (peri-implantitis, marginal bone loss), and technical complications (chipping, fracture, screw loosening).
  • Monolithic zirconia eliminates the porcelain layer, potentially reducing fracture-related repairs and laboratory remakes—cost and time savings that affect both fee-for-service and DSO practices.
  • Trial results allow clinicians to weigh material choice against esthetic demands; zirconia may be favored in bruxers or patients with limited restorative space where PFM fracture risk is high.

Who should care

SpecialistOwnerAcademia

Read the original on Clinical Oral Implants Research

Full reporting and any paywall content live on onlinelibrary.wiley.com. We summarize and score; we do not republish.

Open original

Related