Direct answer
The ceramic implant evidence base includes preclinical reviews, prospective and retrospective cohorts, randomized comparisons, systematic reviews, consensus reports, regulatory records, and historical publications. Readers should use the most relevant source for the exact implant body, surface, design, connection, indication, outcome, and follow-up being evaluated.
Key takeaways
- Start with systematic reviews, then inspect the studies most relevant to the exact system and indication.
- Keep fixture evidence separate from zirconia abutment, crown, and bridge evidence.
- Use DOI, PMID, or regulatory identifiers to verify the source.
- A curated library supports research; it does not replace a continuously updated database search.
Clinical outcomes and comparisons
- Roehling et al. 2023 — commercially available zirconia implants at five years
- Mohseni et al. 2024 — zirconia clinical outcomes
- Morena et al. 2024 — randomized zirconia-versus-titanium comparisons
- Apaza Alccayhuaman et al. 2026 — comparative biological outcomes
Design, mechanics, and complex indications
- Gul et al. 2024 — design, surface, and outcomes
- Attard et al. 2022 — zirconia fracture factors
- Monteiro et al. 2025 — multi-unit and complete-arch zirconia fixtures
- Alves et al. 2026 — immediately loaded zirconia implants
Biology, disease, and patient risk
- EFP S3 guideline 2023 — prevention and treatment of peri-implant diseases
- 2017 World Workshop report — peri-implant disease definitions
- Fan et al. 2024 — smoking and early failure
- Häggman-Henrikson et al. 2024 — bruxism and implant outcomes
History and regulatory records
- Brånemark et al. 1969 — experimental intra-osseous anchorage; PMID 4924041
- Adell et al. 1981 — 15-year osseointegrated implant study; DOI 10.1016/S0300-9785(81)80077-4
- FDA K242072 — 2025 two-piece zirconia device record
- What FDA Clearance Means — patient guide to 510(k) records and substantial equivalence