OBJECTIVE: To assess whether or not peri-implant soft tissue dimensions and hard tissue integration of loaded zirconia implants are similar to those of a titanium implant. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In six dogs, two one-piece zirconia implants (VC, ZD), a two-piece zirconia implant (BPI) and a control one-piece titanium implant (STM) were randomly placed. CAD/CAM crowns were cemented at 6 months. Six months later, animals were killed and histomorphometric analyses were performed, including: the level of the mucosal margin, the extent of the peri-implant mucosa, the marginal bone loss and the bone-to-implant contact (BIC). Means of outcomes variables were calculated together with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: In general, the mucosal margin was located coronally to the implant shoulder. The buccal peri-implant mucosa ranged between 2.64 ± 0.70 mm (VC) and 3.03 ± 1.71 mm (ZD) (for all median comparisons p > 0.05). The relative marginal bone loss ranged between 0.65 ± 0.61 mm (BPI) and 1.73 ± 1.68 mm (ZD) (buccal side), and between 0.55 ± 0.37 mm (VC) and 1.69 ± 1.56 mm (ZD) (lingual side) (p > 0.05). The mean BIC ranged between 78.6% ± 17.3% (ZD) and 87.9% ± 13.6% (STM) without statistically significant differences between the groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: One- and two-piece zirconia rendered similar peri-implant soft tissue dimensions and osseointegration compared to titanium implants that were placed at 6 months of loading. Zirconia implants, however, exhibited a relatively high fracture rate.
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether or not peri-implant soft tissue dimensions and hard tissue integration of loaded zirconia implants are similar to those of a titanium implant. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In six dogs, two one-piece zirconia implants (VC, ZD), a two-piece zirconia implant (BPI) and a control one-piece titanium implant (STM) were randomly placed. CAD/CAM crowns were cemented at 6 months. Six months later, animals were killed and histomorphometric analyses were performed, including: the level of the mucosal margin, the extent of the peri-implant mucosa, the marginal bone loss and the bone-to-implant contact (BIC). Means of outcomes variables were calculated together with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: In general, the mucosal margin was located coronally to the implant shoulder. The buccal peri-implant mucosa ranged between 2.64 ± 0.70 mm (VC) and 3.03 ± 1.71 mm (ZD) (for all median comparisons p > 0.05). The relative marginal bone loss ranged between 0.65 ± 0.61 mm (BPI) and 1.73 ± 1.68 mm (ZD) (buccal side), and between 0.55 ± 0.37 mm (VC) and 1.69 ± 1.56 mm (ZD) (lingual side) (p > 0.05). The mean BIC ranged between 78.6% ± 17.3% (ZD) and 87.9% ± 13.6% (STM) without statistically significant differences between the groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: One- and two-piece zirconia rendered similar peri-implant soft tissue dimensions and osseointegration compared to titanium implants that were placed at 6 months of loading. Zirconia implants, however, exhibited a relatively high fracture rate.
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
Authors: R Velázquez-Cayón; G Castillo-Dalí; J-R Corcuera-Flores; M-A Serrera-Figallo; R Castillo-Oyagüe; M González-Martín; J-L Gutierrez-Pérez; D Torres-Lagares Journal: Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal Date: 2017-09-01
Authors: Hyun-Chang Lim; Ronald Ernst Jung; Christoph Hans Franz Hämmerle; Myong Ji Kim; Kyeong-Won Paeng; Ui-Won Jung; Daniel Stefan Thoma Journal: J Periodontal Implant Sci Date: 2018-06-30 Impact factor: 2.614
Authors: Frank Akito Spitznagel; Marc Balmer; Daniel B Wiedemeier; Ronald Ernst Jung; Petra Christine Gierthmuehlen Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2021-11-05 Impact factor: 5.021