Surface Characteristics of Different Zirconia Dental Implants: A Comparative Study.

Introduction: The invention of dental implants has replaced the fixed partial dentures for the replacement of the teeth. Hence, in the present study, we compared the surface characteristics of various zirconia dental implant systems. Materials and
Methods: We conducted an in vitro comparative study of 50 implants of the dental implant systems "Straumann pure ceramic implants (SC) and Bredent dent whiteSKY™ (BW)." Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used to compare the groups for the surface characters at the different regions of the implant surface.
Results: SC showed deep markings on the surface and droplets, and BW showed smoother surface and bigger droplets under the SEM.
Conclusion: SC may perform better in the clinical conditions as the surface characters are better than the BW. Copyright:

INTRODUCTION

The invention of dental implants has revolutionized the dental clinical field. They have been a preferred choice of the clinician for the replacement of the lost teeth. With better awareness among the patients, the implants are being vastly used for prosthetic rehabilitation. The most common material of choice for the implants is titanium; however, it may be unesthetic in the anterior region.[123] Zirconium dental implant systems are recently introduced to overcome the few drawbacks of titanium implants. These dental implants are of various shapes and surfaces for better acceptance in the bone. The surface characters of the dental implant may affect the longevity of the prosthesis.[456] Hence, in the present study, we compared the surface characteristics of two zirconia dental implant systems.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted an in vitro study using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to study the surface characteristics of the zirconium implant systems. We compared two zirconia dental implant systems “Straumann pure ceramic implants (SC) and Bredent dent whiteSKY™ (BW).” The institutional clearance for the study was obtained. We considered 25 implants of each system. The implants were split into sections to be observed at different regions and were subjected to various tests. The surface characteristics were noted.

RESULTS

We observed the surfaces in the SC were acid etched with special coating and also sandblasting while the BW was only sandblasted. We observed that SC showed deep markings on the surface with finest droplets, and BW showed smoother surface with bigger droplets under the SEM [Table 1].

Table 1

The surface characteristics of the sections of the implants

Surface characteristics	SC	BW
Surface properties	Deep marking	Smooth
Droplet	Finest	Bigger

SC: Straumann pure Ceramic implants, BW: Bredent dent whiteSKY™

DISCUSSION

The ideal of the metals for dental implants is titanium. There are long-term studies on the longevity and the functional success of titanium implants. The drawback of this metal is the unesthetic if the gingiva recedes in the anterior region. To overcome this, zirconium implant systems were introduced.[567] We, in our studied compared such two zirconia dental implant systems “SC and BW.” We considered these two systems as one has deep markings and the other is smooth. Both the zirconium systems were sandblasted, while the SC was etched and special coated. Our observation is unison with the study of Albrektsson et al.[6] We observed that SC showed deep markings on the surface with finest droplets and BW showed smoother surface with bigger droplets under the SEM. This could be due to the SC being acid etched, with special coating and also sandblasting while the BW was only sandblasted. This is in comparison with the study of Al-Nawas and Götz,[8] where they also studied the zirconium implant systems and concluded that zirconium to be similar to the conventional implants. The zirconium is biocompatible. This metal is being used in other medical specialties for the prosthetic rehabilitation successfully. Similarly, they have shown success in dental implantology. This material does not produce the unesthetic metal oxides that are seen in the titanium implants. Hence, these are more accepted by the patients.,[4567] These features of the zirconium dental implants are comparable to the titanium implants. Further studies with the clinical application of these implants are advised.

CONCLUSION

We can conclude that SC may perform better in the clinical conditions as the surface characters are better than the BW. Both the systems can be successfully used in the replacement of the lost teeth for rehabilitation for both the esthetics and the functionality.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.