AIM: The aim of this systematic review was to screen the literature in order to locate animal and clinical data on bone-implant contact (BIC) and clinical survival/success that would help to answer the question 'Are ceramic implants a viable alternative to titanium implants?' MATERIAL AND METHODS: A literature search was performed in the following databases: (1) the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, (2) the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), (3) MEDLINE (Ovid), and (4) PubMed. To evaluate biocompatibility, animal investigations were scrutinized regarding the amount of BIC and to assess implant longevity clinical data were evaluated. RESULTS: The PubMed search yielded 349 titles and the Cochrane/MEDLINE search yielded 881 titles. Based upon abstract screening and discarding duplicates from both searches, 100 full-text articles were obtained and subjected to additional evaluation. A further publication was included based on the manual search. The selection process resulted in the final sample of 25 studies. No (randomized) controlled clinical trials regarding the outcome of zirconia and alumina ceramic implants could be found. The systematic review identified histological animal studies showing similar BIC between alumina, zirconia and titanium. Clinical investigations using different alumina oral implants up to 10 years showed survival/success rates in the range of 23 to 98% for different indications. The included zirconia implant studies presented a survival rate from 84% after 21 months to 98% after 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: No difference was found in the rate of osseointegration between the different implant materials in animal experiments. Only cohort investigations were located with questionable scientific value. Alumina implants did not perform satisfactorily and therefore, based on this review, are not a viable alternative to titanium implants. Currently, the scientific clinical data for ceramic implants in general and for zirconia implants in particular are not sufficient to recommend ceramic implants for routine clinical use. Zirconia, however, may have the potential to be a successful implant material, although this is as yet unsupported by clinical investigations.
AIM: The aim of this systematic review was to screen the literature in order to locate animal and clinical data on bone-implant contact (BIC) and clinical survival/success that would help to answer the question 'Are ceramic implants a viable alternative to titanium implants?' MATERIAL AND METHODS: A literature search was performed in the following databases: (1) the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, (2) the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), (3) MEDLINE (Ovid), and (4) PubMed. To evaluate biocompatibility, animal investigations were scrutinized regarding the amount of BIC and to assess implant longevity clinical data were evaluated. RESULTS: The PubMed search yielded 349 titles and the Cochrane/MEDLINE search yielded 881 titles. Based upon abstract screening and discarding duplicates from both searches, 100 full-text articles were obtained and subjected to additional evaluation. A further publication was included based on the manual search. The selection process resulted in the final sample of 25 studies. No (randomized) controlled clinical trials regarding the outcome of zirconia and alumina ceramic implants could be found. The systematic review identified histological animal studies showing similar BIC between alumina, zirconia and titanium. Clinical investigations using different alumina oral implants up to 10 years showed survival/success rates in the range of 23 to 98% for different indications. The included zirconia implant studies presented a survival rate from 84% after 21 months to 98% after 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: No difference was found in the rate of osseointegration between the different implant materials in animal experiments. Only cohort investigations were located with questionable scientific value. Alumina implants did not perform satisfactorily and therefore, based on this review, are not a viable alternative to titanium implants. Currently, the scientific clinical data for ceramic implants in general and for zirconia implants in particular are not sufficient to recommend ceramic implants for routine clinical use. Zirconia, however, may have the potential to be a successful implant material, although this is as yet unsupported by clinical investigations.
Authors: Felix Burkhardt; Markus Harlass; Erik Adolfsson; Kirstin Vach; Benedikt Christopher Spies; Ralf-Joachim Kohal Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2021-04-23 Impact factor: 3.623