One‐piece zirconia oral implants for single‐tooth replacement: Three‐year results from a long‐term prospective cohort study

Abstract

Aim: This 3-year report of a prospective long-term cohort investigation aimed to evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of a one-piece zirconia oral implant for single-tooth replacement. Materials and Methods:Sixty-five patients received a 1-stage implant surgery with immediate temporization. Standardized radiographs were taken at implant insertion, after 1 year, and after 3 years to monitor peri-implant bone levels. A univariate analysis of the association of different baseline parameters on marginal bone loss from implant insertion to 36 months was performed. Soft-tissue parameters were evaluated at prosthesis insertion, after 6 months, after 1 year, and at the 3-year follow-up. Results:After 3 years, six posterior site implants were lost, giving a cumulative survival rate of 90.8%. The mean marginal bone loss was 1.45 mm; 35% of the implants lost at least 2 mm bone, and 22% more than 3 mm. The univariate analysis did not identify any parameter associated with marginal bone loss. Probing depth, clinical attachment level, and bleeding index increased over 3 years, and plaque index decreased. Conclusions:The low survival rate of the presented ceramic implant and especially the high frequency of advanced bone loss are noticeable but remain unexplained. K E Y W O R D Sclinical investigation, oral implants, prospective, zirconia

Immunohistological composition of peri‐implantitis affected tissue around ceramic implants—A pilot study

“…34 In the peri-implant mucosa of zirconia ceramic implants, zirconia elements have been detected as well, however the origin and influence of metal or ceramic ions or particles on peri-implantitis remains unclear. 17 Furthermore, the host-response and interaction between lymphocyte-and monocyte-macrophage lineage as well as the influence of nano-and microparticles on the microbial biofilm and cytokine release in peri-implant inflammation is not elucidated and future studies could shed more light on the etiological discussion. 9 Within this study, the first histological comparison of human peri-implantitis lesions around ceramic and titanium implants was performed.…”

“…Influence of metal particles and ions on peri‐implant biofilm and their possible role in the development, formation and production of extracellular polysaccharides is discussed in current research 34 . In the peri‐implant mucosa of zirconia ceramic implants, zirconia elements have been detected as well, however the origin and influence of metal or ceramic ions or particles on peri‐implantitis remains unclear 17 . Furthermore, the host‐response and interaction between lymphocyte‐ and monocyte‐macrophage lineage as well as the influence of nano‐ and microparticles on the microbial biofilm and cytokine release in peri‐implant inflammation is not elucidated and future studies could shed more light on the etiological discussion 9 …”

“…15 Currently, there are mainly one-piece implants on the dental market, however more and more two-piece ceramic implants are available. [16][17][18] To produce a roughened zirco-nia surface, sintering particles onto the implant surface, nanotechnology, laser technology, sandblasting, or sandblasting and acid etching with a mixture of hydrofluoric and sulfuric acid have been used leading to different manufacturer dependent microtopographys. 19 Y-TZP has been described to exhibit various benefits including excellent biocompatibility.…”

“…Three zirconia‐containing ceramic systems are established in implant dentistry: yttrium‐stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystals (Y‐TZP), alumina‐toughened zirconia (ATZ) and zirconia‐toughened alumina (ZTA) 15 . Currently, there are mainly one‐piece implants on the dental market, however more and more two‐piece ceramic implants are available 16–18 . To produce a roughened zirconia surface, sintering particles onto the implant surface, nanotechnology, laser technology, sandblasting, or sandblasting and acid etching with a mixture of hydrofluoric and sulfuric acid have been used leading to different manufacturer dependent microtopographys 19 .…”

Accuracy of cone‐beam computed tomography, dental magnetic resonance imaging, and intraoral radiography for detecting peri‐implant bone defects at single zirconia implants—An in vitro study

“…Several studies have confirmed stable peri‐implant bone levels around zirconia implants (Kniha et al, ; Pieralli, Kohal, Jung, et al, ). For specific zirconia implants, however, marginal bone loss was remarkably high (Kohal, Schwindling, Bächle, & Spies, ; Kohal, Spies, Bauer, & Butz, ). Early detection of bone lesions around implants is, therefore, as important for zirconia implants as it is for titanium implants.…”