Background: Titanium and titanium alloys are widely used for fabrication of dental implants. Since the material composition and the surface topography of a biomaterial play a fundamental role in osseointegration, various chemical and physical surface modifications have been developed to improve osseous healing. Zirconia-based implants were introduced into dental implantology as an altenative to titanium implants. Zirconia seems to be a suitable implant material because of its tooth-like colour, its mechanical properties and its biocompatibility. As the osseointegration of zirconia implants has not been extensively investigated, the aim of this study was to compare the osseous healing of zirconia implants with titanium implants which have a roughened surface but otherwise similar implant geometries.

No abstract

No abstract

Several grafting materials have been used in sinus augmentation procedures including autogenous bone, demineralized freeze-dried bone (DFDBA), hydroxyapatite, β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP), anorganic deproteinized bovine bone and combination of these and others. Up to now a subject of controversy in maxillofacial surgery and dentistry is, what is the most appropriate graft material for sinus floor augmentation. Purpose:The aim of this study is to provide a body of evidence-based data regarding grafting materials in external sinus floor elevation concerning the fate of the augmented material at the histomorphological level, through a meta-analysis of the available literature. Materials and methods:The literature searches were performed using the National Library of Medicine. The search covered all English and German literature from 1995 until 2006. For analyzing the amount of bone the parameter "Total Bone Volume" (TBV) was assessed. TBV is determined as the percentage of the section consisting of bone tissue. Results:In a relatively early phase after implantation the autogenous bone shows the highest TBV values. Interestingly, the different TBV levels approximate during the time. After 9 months no statistically significant differences can be detected between the various grafting materials. Conclusion:From a clinical point of view, the use of autogenous bone is advantageous if a prosthetic rehabilitation (with functional loading) is expected within 9 months. In other cases the use of anorganic deproteinized bovine bone in combination with autogenous bone seems to be preferable. Donor side morbidity is ignored in this conclusion.

No abstract