Stability and aging resistance of a zirconia oral implant using a carbon fiber-reinforced screw for implant-abutment connection

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

“…Simpler variants of two‐piece zirconia implants have recently been introduced that feature an internal titanium body with a screw‐type abutment‐implant connection or a carbon‐reinforced PEEK (polyether ether ketone) screw. Data available on these designs are, however, largely experimental at this time (Spies et al, ). While our medium‐term data here presented are promising, we expect the long‐term outcomes to yield more valid conclusions on abutment connections for two‐piece zirconia implants.…”

Fracture Resistance of Zirconia Oral Implants In Vitro: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…When only the fracture load [N] during static loading was reported, three options allowed for the calculation of the bending moment: (1) embedding was described to fully respect ISO 14801 (prescribing a lever arm of 5.5 mm allowing for the calculation of the bending moment), (2) all details regarding the embedding were provided in the manuscript (e.g., by providing a scheme) or (3) the bending moment and/or lever arm were provided by the authors upon request. As an example, six of the included studies adopted ISO 14801 for embedding [15,17,21,[24][25][26], whereas three provided all necessary information [19,27,28] allowing us to calculate the bending moment (embedding level, angulation, total sample length, point of loading). In the remaining cases the bending moment was reported [13,20,22] or sent by the authors [12,18,29,30].…”

“…were involved in both of these two investigations, and were able to access the full data. The applied materials and methods were already described in detail in precedent publications [21,26]. Since available on the market, the material composition of the included implant systems is likewise available and accessible.…”

“…Since available on the market, the material composition of the included implant systems is likewise available and accessible. In detail, three zirconia implant systems (1-piece: Straumann PURE Ceramic, Straumann AG, Basel, CH; 2-piece: 5s-50-10, Z-Systems AG, Oensingen, CH and Ceralog Hexalobe Implant, Axis biodental, Les Bois, CH) were subjected to identical treatments and fracture load measurements, as described in two of the included studies [21,26]. In the case of Straumann 1-piece (as-received: 609 ± 20 Ncm; loaded/aged: 557 ± 36 Ncm) and Z-Systems 2-piece implants (as-received: 463 ± 21 Ncm; loaded/aged: 443 ± 39 Ncm), aging/loading (as described in [21,26]) did not affect the fracture resistance to a statistically significant level (p = 0.171).…”

“…In detail, three zirconia implant systems (1-piece: Straumann PURE Ceramic, Straumann AG, Basel, CH; 2-piece: 5s-50-10, Z-Systems AG, Oensingen, CH and Ceralog Hexalobe Implant, Axis biodental, Les Bois, CH) were subjected to identical treatments and fracture load measurements, as described in two of the included studies [21,26]. In the case of Straumann 1-piece (as-received: 609 ± 20 Ncm; loaded/aged: 557 ± 36 Ncm) and Z-Systems 2-piece implants (as-received: 463 ± 21 Ncm; loaded/aged: 443 ± 39 Ncm), aging/loading (as described in [21,26]) did not affect the fracture resistance to a statistically significant level (p = 0.171). In contrast, the fracture resistance of 2-piece Ceralog Hexalobe Implants (as-received: 547 ± 89 Ncm; loaded/aged: 413 ± 127 Ncm) was significantly affected (p = 0.046) by aging/loading (as described in [21,26]).…”