Osseointegration of one‐piece zirconia implants compared with a titanium implant of identical design: a histomorphometric study in the dog

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate osseointegration of one‐piece zirconia vs. titanium implants depending on their insertion depth by histomorphometry. Material and methods: Four one‐piece implants of identical geometry were inserted on each side of six mongrel dogs: (1) an uncoated zirconia implant, (2) a zirconia implant coated with a calcium‐liberating titanium oxide coating, (3) a titanium implant and (4) an experimental implant made of a synthetic material (polyetheretherketone). In a split‐mouth manner they were inserted in submerged and non‐submerged gingival healing modes. After 4 months, dissected blocks were stained with toluidine blue in order to histologically assess the bone‐to‐implant contact (BIC) rates and the bone levels (BL) of the implants. Results: All 48 implants were osseointegrated clinically and histologically. Histomorphometrically, BL in the crestal implant part did not differ significantly with regard to material type or healing modality. The submerged coated zirconia implants tended to offer the most stable crestal BL. The histometric results reflected the different healing modes by establishing different BL. The median BIC of the apical implant part of the zirconia and titanium group amounted to 59.2% for uncoated zirconia, 58.3% for coated zirconia, 26.8% for the synthetic material and 41.2% for titanium implants. Conclusions: Within the limits of this animal study, it is concluded that zirconia implants are capable of establishing close BIC rates similar to what is known from the osseointegration behaviour of titanium implants with the same surface modification and roughness. To cite this article: Koch FP, Weng D, Krämer S, Biesterfeld S, Jahn‐Eimermacher A, Wagner W. Osseointegration of one‐piece zirconia implants compared with a titanium implant of identical design: a histomorphometric study in the dog. Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 21, 2010; 350–356. doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2009.01832.x

Influence of surface roughness of dental zirconia implants on their mechanical stability, cell behavior and osseointegration

“…; S a values of 1.1 μm and 2.5 μm and R a values of 1.78 μm and 3.19 μm) are higher than most of the data provided for micro-topographies that were previously reported for sandblasted zirconia ceramics, which ranged between S a values of 0.56 μm (ZrO 2 [11]), 0.96 μm (Y-TZP [12]) and 1.1 μm (Y-TZP [16]); and R a values of ~ 1.5 μm (ZrO 2 [17,18]). However, only few of these studies provided a detailed description of the abrasive treatment, the 3D topography or the mechanical properties.…”

Influence of surface treatment of yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal with hot isostatic pressing on cyclic fatigue strength

“…However, this may induce phase transformation in zirconia, from tetragonal to monoclinic, as well as superficial microcracks, resulting in change in its mechanical properties in terms of both static and fatigue strength [20][21][22] . Takano However, the influence of surface treatment on the fatigue strength of Y-TZP fabricated by HIP processing (HIP Y-TZP) remains to be determined, even though this is an important factor in its durability in the oral environment 8,24,25) . Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of surface treatment of HIP Y-TZP on cyclic fatigue strength.…”

Acid and alkali etching of grit blasted zirconia: Impact on adhesion and osteogenic differentiation of MG63 cells in vitro

“…Ceramic implants made of zirconia already are available to a small segment of the global market. A few short-term clinical reports on zirconia implants are available 6) , but most evidence comes from preclinical studies in pigs 7,8) , dogs 9) and rabbits 10) . In vitro research on zirconia was initiated in an attempt to understand the role of wear particles in aseptic loosening of hip prostheses 11) .…”