Evidence
Which one is right for me?
Neither is "better" in general. A design difference is not evidence that one gives better results for you. The surgeon decides based on your bone, the site and the planned teeth.
Would you like a clinician to explain which options fit your situation?
Request an assessment
Clinical review pending. Facts on this page are checked against the sources listed below (regulatory records, manufacturer documents, peer-reviewed research). A named clinician will review it before we call it medically reviewed.
Last updated 28 Sep 2026 · How we review
Last updated 28 Sep 2026 · How we review
Sources
- Systematic reviewMorena D et al. Zirconia versus titanium implants: systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs — J Clin Med, 2024. Accessed 28 Sep 2026.
- Regulatory recordFDA 510(k) K142260 — NobelActive — U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2015-05-11. Accessed 28 Sep 2026.
- Regulatory recordFDA 510(k) K180184 — Zeramex XT / NobelPearl Dental Implant System (Dentalpoint AG) — U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2018-11-16. Accessed 28 Sep 2026.
- Manufacturer documentationNobel Biocare — CC implants and prosthetics product overview 25.1 (95092) — Nobel Biocare Services AG, 2025. Accessed 28 Sep 2026.
- Independent clinical studyArnhart C et al. Variable-thread tapered implant designs vs a standard tapered design after immediate loading: 3-year multicentre RCT. Eur J Oral Implantol 2012 — Eur J Oral Implantol, 2012. Accessed 28 Sep 2026.
- Systematic reviewPadhye NM et al. Survival and success of zirconia compared with titanium implants: systematic review and meta-analysis — Clin Oral Investig, 2023. Accessed 28 Sep 2026.
- Systematic reviewHaimov E et al. Titanium, titanium-zirconium and zirconia implant outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis — J Oral Maxillofac Res, 2023. Accessed 28 Sep 2026.
