In Vitro Biofilm Formation on Titanium and Zirconia Implant Surfaces

Roehling, Stefan; Astasov‐Frauenhoffer, Monika; Hauser-Gerspach, Irmgard; Braissant, Olivier; Woelfler, Henriette; Waltimo, Tuomas; Kniha, Heinz; Gahlert, Michael

doi:10.1902/jop.2016.160245

Cited by 158 publications

(139 citation statements)

References 51 publications

(74 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

112

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, a significant higher amount of plaque was found around the PFM bridges compared to the BruxZir bridges. This was earlier reported in in vitro studies, where biofilm formation was significantly less at zirconia surfaces compared to titanium . Removal of this biofilm is also easier at zirconia compared to titanium surfaces .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

A prospective, split‐mouth study comparing tilted implants with angulated connection versus conventional implants with angulated abutment

Weehaeghe

Bruyn

Vandeweghe

2017

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

A prospective, split‐mouth study comparing tilted implants with angulated connection versus conventional implants with angulated abutment

Weehaeghe

Bruyn

Vandeweghe

2017

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The biofilm formation in vivo takes longer time than in vitro, which may be due to the “race to surface” between bacteria and host cells. Bacterial attachment and biofilm formation stage lasted 12–24 h, and the biofilm proliferation and maturation lasted 36–72 h for completion [43, 44]. The early infection may be defined up to 3–4 weeks during which debridement and antibiotic therapy with the retained stable implants were performed in the traditional management perspective [45, 46].…”

Section: Mechanism Of the Iris—biofilmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coatings as the useful drug delivery system for the prevention of implant-related infections

Pan

Zhou

2018

J Orthop Surg Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Implant-related infections (IRIs) which led to a large amount of medical expenditure were caused by bacteria and fungi that involve the implants in the operation or in ward. Traditional treatments of IRIs were comprised of repeated radical debridement, replacement of internal fixators, and intravenous antibiotics. It needed a long time and numbers of surgeries to cure, which meant a catastrophe to patients. So how to prevent it was more important than to cure it. As an excellent local release system, coating is a good idea by its local drug infusion and barrier effect on resisting biofilms which were the main cause of IRIs. So in this review, materials used for coatings and evidences of prevention were elaborated.

show abstract

“…Another issue is restorations in the esthetic zone, where titanium implants may carry a risk of tissue discoloration at sites with localized bone loss, notably in patients with a thin gingival biotype. Zirconia implants may well be advantageous in these situations thanks to their tooth‐like color (Elnayef et al, ; Ioannidis et al, ), and they offer the additional benefit of reduced bacterial and plaque adhesion (Cionca, Hashim, & Mombelli, ; Roehling et al, ). Anyway, their clinical use has rapidly increased in recent years due to the aforementioned growing demand for metal‐free alternatives to titanium implants, and numerous clinical and experimental studies have demonstrated excellent biocompatibility as well as promising short‐ and medium‐term outcomes (Haro Adanez, Nishihara, & Att, ; Piconi & Maccauro, ; Roehling, Schlegel, Woelfler, & Gahlert, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two‐piece zirconia versus titanium implants after 80 months: Clinical outcomes from a prospective randomized pilot trial

Koller

Steyer

Theisen

et al. 2020

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To prospectively evaluate, as part of an ongoing randomized pilot trial, the clinical outcomes of two‐piece zirconia implants in comparison with titanium implants 80 months after delivery of all‐ceramic (lithium disilicate) single‐tooth restorations. Material and methods The original sample included 31 (16 zirconia and 15 titanium) implants in 22 healthy patients. In addition to evaluating implant survival and success, a number of clinical or radiographic parameters were statistically analyzed: plaque index (PI), bleeding on probing (BOP), pink esthetic score (PES), and marginal bone loss (MBL). Both implant groups were compared using a Mann–Whitney U test. Results Three implants (2 zirconia and 1 titanium) had been lost, so that 28 implants (14 zirconia and 14 titanium) in 21 patients could be evaluated after a mean of 80.9 (SD: 5.5) months. All surviving implants had remained stable, in the absence of any fixture or abutment fractures and without any chipping, fracture, or debonding of crowns. The zirconia implants were associated with PI values of 11.07% (SD: 8.11) and the titanium implants with 15.20% (SD: 15.58), the respective figures for the other parameters being 16.43% (SD: 6.16) or 12.60% (SD: 7.66) for BOP; 11.11 (SD: 1.27) or 11.56 (SD: 1.01) for PES; and 1.38 mm (SD: 0.81) or 1.17 mm (SD: 0.73) for MBL. Conclusions No significant differences were found between the clinical outcomes of two‐piece zirconia and titanium implants based on the aforementioned parameters after 80 months of clinical service. Our results should be interpreted with the limited sample size in mind.

show abstract

In Vitro Biofilm Formation on Titanium and Zirconia Implant Surfaces

Abstract: Zirconia implant surfaces showed a statistically significant reduction in human plaque biofilm formation after 72 hours of incubation in an experimental anaerobic flow chamber model compared with titanium implant surfaces.

Cited by 158 publications

References 51 publications

A prospective, split‐mouth study comparing tilted implants with angulated connection versus conventional implants with angulated abutment

A prospective, split‐mouth study comparing tilted implants with angulated connection versus conventional implants with angulated abutment

Coatings as the useful drug delivery system for the prevention of implant-related infections

Two‐piece zirconia versus titanium implants after 80 months: Clinical outcomes from a prospective randomized pilot trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About