Simone F M Janner1,2, Michael Gahlert3,4, Dieter D Bosshardt5, Stefan Roehling1,3, Stefan Milz6, Frank Higginbottom7, Daniel Buser2, David L Cochran1. 1. Department of Periodontics, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA. 2. Department of Oral Surgery and Stomatology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 3. Clinic for Oral and Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, Hightech Research Center, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 4. Private Practice, Munich, Germany. 5. Robert K. Schenk Laboratory of Oral Histology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 6. Anatomische Anstalt, Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich, Germany. 7. Private Practice, Dallas, TX, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the bone response to a two-piece zirconia implant in comparison with a control titanium implant in the canine mandible 4 and 16 weeks after restoration. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Zirconia and titanium implants were alternately placed bilaterally in healed mandibular molar and premolar sites of five canines. Full-ceramic single-tooth restorations were cemented after 6 weeks of transmucosal healing, allowing for full functional loading of the implants. Histologic and histometric analyses were performed on orofacial and mesiodistal undecalcified sections of the specimens obtained upon sacrifice after 4 and 16 weeks of functional loading. Bone-to-implant contact (BIC), multinucleated giant cells-to-implant contact (MIC), crestal bone level, and peri-implant bone density were histometrically assessed. RESULTS: All 60 implants and 60 restorations were still in function after 4 and 16 weeks of loading in both test and control groups. No implant loss, no implant or abutment fracture, and no chipping of the restorations could be detected. Histometric analysis showed no statistically significant differences between zirconia and titanium implants in BIC, crestal bone level, and peri-implant bone density at both time points. Between 4 and 16 weeks, the crestal bone level around zirconia implants showed a small but statistically significant increase in its distance from the implant shoulder. MIC was very low on both implant types and both time points and decreased statistically significantly overtime. CONCLUSION: The present two-piece zirconia implant showed a similar bone integration compared to the titanium implant with similar surface morphology after 4 and 16 weeks of loading.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the bone response to a two-piece zirconia implant in comparison with a control titanium implant in the canine mandible 4 and 16 weeks after restoration. MATERIAL AND METHODS:Zirconia and titanium implants were alternately placed bilaterally in healed mandibular molar and premolar sites of five canines. Full-ceramic single-tooth restorations were cemented after 6 weeks of transmucosal healing, allowing for full functional loading of the implants. Histologic and histometric analyses were performed on orofacial and mesiodistal undecalcified sections of the specimens obtained upon sacrifice after 4 and 16 weeks of functional loading. Bone-to-implant contact (BIC), multinucleated giant cells-to-implant contact (MIC), crestal bone level, and peri-implant bone density were histometrically assessed. RESULTS: All 60 implants and 60 restorations were still in function after 4 and 16 weeks of loading in both test and control groups. No implant loss, no implant or abutment fracture, and no chipping of the restorations could be detected. Histometric analysis showed no statistically significant differences between zirconia and titanium implants in BIC, crestal bone level, and peri-implant bone density at both time points. Between 4 and 16 weeks, the crestal bone level around zirconia implants showed a small but statistically significant increase in its distance from the implant shoulder. MIC was very low on both implant types and both time points and decreased statistically significantly overtime. CONCLUSION: The present two-piece zirconia implant showed a similar bone integration compared to the titanium implant with similar surface morphology after 4 and 16 weeks of loading.
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: 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
Authors: Vincent Offermanns; Ole Z Andersen; Michael Sillassen; Klaus P Almtoft; Inge H Andersen; Frank Kloss; Morten Foss Journal: Int J Nanomedicine Date: 2018-04-11