Literature DB >> 17608736

Biomechanical and histomorphometric comparison between zirconia implants with varying surface textures and a titanium implant in the maxilla of miniature pigs.

M Gahlert1, T Gudehus, S Eichhorn, E Steinhauser, H Kniha, W Erhardt.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mechanical properties and biocompatibility make zirconia ceramics suitable implant material. The characteristics of tooth-color like, the ability to be machined and the low plaque affinity make zirconia especially suitable as a dental implant material. The influence of surface modification on the osseointegration of this material has not been extensively investigated.
PURPOSE: Long-term investigations with titanium implants have shown superior biomechanical results with the sandblasted acid-etched (SLA) surface, demonstrating a high bone-implant interaction. The objective of this study was to compare two different zirconia surface topographies biomechanically and histologically with the well-documented titanium SLA surface.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Zirconia implants with either a machined (ZrO2m) or a sandblasted (rough, ZrO2r) surface were manufactured with the exact same cylindrical shape with a standard ITI thread configuration as the SLA titanium implants. The incisors 2 and 3 were removed from both sides of the maxillae of 13 adult miniature pigs and the tissues left to heal for 6 months. After this time period the animals received a total of 78 implants using a randomized scheme, with the titanium SLA implant used as an only individual reference. After healing periods of 4, 8, and 12 weeks 20, 24, and 25 implants, respectively, were subjected to removal torque tests (RTQ) as the main biomechanical analysis of the of the study. A fewer number was resected on bloc, embedded in methylmethacrylat and analyzed for their direct bone apposition under a light microscope.
RESULTS: Surface analysis revealed the highest surface roughness for the SLA-implant, followed by ZrO2r and ZrO2m. The turned ZrO2m implants showed statistically significant lower RTQ values than the other two implants types after 8 and 12 weeks, while the SLA implant showed significantly higher RTQs values than ZrO2r surface after 8 weeks. Differences in the bone apposition were observed in the histomorphometric analysis using light microscopy for all surfaces at any time point.
CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that ZrO2r implants can achieve a higher stability in bone than ZrO2m implants. Roughening the turned zirconia implants enhances bone apposition and has a beneficial effect on the interfacial shear strength.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17608736     DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01401.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res        ISSN: 0905-7161            Impact factor:   5.977


  29 in total

Review 1.  Zirconia surface modifications for implant dentistry.

Authors:  Fernanda H Schünemann; María E Galárraga-Vinueza; Ricardo Magini; Márcio Fredel; Filipe Silva; Júlio C M Souza; Yu Zhang; Bruno Henriques
Journal:  Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl       Date:  2019-01-16       Impact factor: 7.328

Review 2.  Implants in bone: part I. A current overview about tissue response, surface modifications and future perspectives.

Authors:  Cornelius von Wilmowsky; Tobias Moest; Emeka Nkenke; Florian Stelzle; Karl Andreas Schlegel
Journal:  Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2013-02-24

3.  Osteogenic responses to zirconia with hydroxyapatite coating by aerosol deposition.

Authors:  Y Cho; J Hong; H Ryoo; D Kim; J Park; J Han
Journal:  J Dent Res       Date:  2015-01-13       Impact factor: 6.116

4.  Bacteria and osteoblast adhesion to chitosan immobilized titanium surface: A race for the surface.

Authors:  Berit L Foss; Niranjan Ghimire; Ruogu Tang; Yuyu Sun; Ying Deng
Journal:  Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces       Date:  2015-07-17       Impact factor: 5.268

5.  Bone tissue response to experimental zirconia implants.

Authors:  Ilja Mihatovic; Vladimir Golubovic; Jürgen Becker; Frank Schwarz
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2016-08-09       Impact factor: 3.573

6.  Comparison of peri-implant bone formation around injection-molded and machined surface zirconia implants in rabbit tibiae.

Authors:  Hong-Kyun Kim; Kyung Mi Woo; Won-Jun Shon; Jin-Soo Ahn; Seunghee Cha; Young-Seok Park
Journal:  Dent Mater J       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 2.102

7.  Stable sol-gel hydroxyapatite coating on zirconia dental implant for improved osseointegration.

Authors:  Jinyoung Kim; In-Gu Kang; Kwang-Hee Cheon; Sungmi Lee; Suhyung Park; Hyoun-Ee Kim; Cheol-Min Han
Journal:  J Mater Sci Mater Med       Date:  2021-06-30       Impact factor: 3.896

8.  Zirconia Implants in Esthetic Areas: 4-Year Follow-Up Evaluation Study.

Authors:  Andrea Enrico Borgonovo; Rachele Censi; Virna Vavassori; Oscar Arnaboldi; Carlo Maiorana; Dino Re
Journal:  Int J Dent       Date:  2015-06-01

9.  Osseointegration of zirconia implants compared with titanium: an in vivo study.

Authors:  Rita Depprich; Holger Zipprich; Michelle Ommerborn; Christian Naujoks; Hans-Peter Wiesmann; Sirichai Kiattavorncharoen; Hans-Christoph Lauer; Ulrich Meyer; Norbert R Kübler; Jörg Handschel
Journal:  Head Face Med       Date:  2008-12-11       Impact factor: 2.151

Review 10.  Zirconia in dental implantology: A review.

Authors:  Abhishek Apratim; Prashanti Eachempati; Kiran Kumar Krishnappa Salian; Vijendra Singh; Saurabh Chhabra; Sanket Shah
Journal:  J Int Soc Prev Community Dent       Date:  2015 May-Jun
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.