HIGHClinicalTier 1
Peri‐Implant Soft Tissue Response to Monolithic Zirconia Versus Porcelain‐Fused‐to‐Metal Implant Crowns: Histological and Clinical Outcomes of an RCT
SourceJournal of Clinical PeriodontologyTier 1Peer-Reviewed Research
By Yifan Zhang, Sven Mühlemann, Aspasia Pachiou, Stephanie Astrid Stalder, Ronald E. Jung, Ye Lin, Daniel S. Thoma
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
This RCT gives implant-placing dentists and periodontists direct histologic and clinical evidence to choose monolithic zirconia over porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns when soft-tissue preservation is a priority, potentially reducing peri-implantitis risk and future revision surgery.
Key points
- Study used human histology, not just probing or radiographs, to compare soft-tissue attachment and inflammatory response around the two crown types.
- Monolithic zirconia showed statistically lower pocket depths and bleeding indices at 12 months versus PFM (exact values in full paper).
- Crown material was the only variable; all implants were the same brand and placed in similar bone levels, isolating the effect to the crown surface.
- Findings apply to single-unit posterior implants; authors caution against extrapolation to full-arch zirconia or bruxers until longer-term data are available.
Who should care
SpecialistOwner
Read the original on Journal of Clinical Periodontology
Full reporting and any paywall content live on onlinelibrary.wiley.com. We summarize and score; we do not republish.