ReviewMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Advancements in Individual Dental Implants: A State-of-the-Art Review of Materials and Technologies.
Review in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis narrative review synthesizes current evidence on materials and manufacturing technologies for customized dental implants, highlighting their comparative advantages and limitations.
methodsA structured literature search (December 2024-January 2025) was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Peer-reviewed English-language articles (mainly 2015-2025) addressing implant materials, manufacturing methods, and surface modifications were included. Data were critically analyzed and thematically organized without meta-analysis.
resultsDigital workflows are advancing implantology toward patient-specific solutions. Subtractive manufacturing (SM) ensures high precision and surface quality but is limited by material waste and geometric constraints. In contrast, additive manufacturing (AM) enables complex, porous, and customized designs, though often requires post-processing. Titanium and its alloys remain the gold standard due to strength and biocompatibility, while TiZr and β-type alloys may reduce stress shielding. Zirconia offers aesthetic benefits but is brittle, whereas PEEK shows favorable elasticity but limited bioactivity. Surface modifications enhance osseointegration and long-term performance.
conclusionsCombining digital workflows with SM and AM supports development of optimized, patient-specific implants. While titanium dominates clinical use, emerging materials offer specific advantages. Further clinical validation and standardization are required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.