Osseointegration of Zirconia Implants after UV-Light or Cold Atmospheric Plasma Surface Treatment In Vivo

The influence of UV light and non-thermal plasma on the osseointegration of yttria-stabilized zirconia implants (Y-TZP) comparing the two methods is unclear. The aim of this study was to show the influence of these methods on the osseointegration of dental zirconia implants in an animal model. A total of 54 implants were either untreated, treated with UV light (UV), or non-thermal oxygen plasma for 12 min and inserted into the parietal bones of six domestic pigs. The animals were sacrificed after a healing interval of two, four, and nine weeks. The degree of osseointegration was determined using histomorphometric determination of bone-to-implant contact values (BIC) and the bone-to-implant contact values within the retentive parts of the implants (BAFO). BIC values decreased in all groups after four weeks of healing and re-increased after nine weeks in all groups. BAFO increased significantly over time in all groups. However, there were no statistically significant differences in BIC and BAFO values between the control group and the test groups and over time. Clinical studies may follow to confirm the influence of cold plasma and UV light on the healing and survival of zirconia implants.

A Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Zirconia Dental Implants: 10-Year Follow-Up

Purpose. The aim is to evaluate the survival and success rates, as well as the marginal bone loss (MBL) and periodontal indexes, of zirconia implants with 10-year follow-up. Materials and Methods. 10 patients were selected and 26 one-piece zirconia implants were used for the rehabilitation of single tooth or partially edentulous ridge. After 10 years, a clinical-radiographic evaluation was performed in order to estimate peri-implant tissue health and marginal bone loss. Results. The survival and success rates were 100%. The average marginal bone loss from baseline to 120 months after surgery was 0.92 ± 0.97 mm. Conclusion. One-piece zirconia dental implants are characterised by high biocompatibility, low plaque adhesion, and absence of microgap that can be related to the clinical success of these implants.

Zirconia vs. Titanium Dental Implants: Primary Stability In-Vitro Analysis

The present experimental trial uses two types of dental implants, one made of titanium (Ti6Al4V) and the other one of zirconia (ZrO2), but both of identical design, to compare their stability and micro-movements values under load. One of each type of implant (n = 42) was placed into 21 cow ribs, recording the insertion torque and the resonance frequency using a specific transducer. Subsequently, a prosthetic crown made of PMMA was screwed onto each of the implants in the sample. They were then subjected to a static compression load on the vestibular cusp of the crown. The resulting micromovements were measured. The zirconia implants obtained a higher mean of both IT and RFA when compared with those of titanium, with statistically significant differences in both cases (p = 0.0483 and p = 0.0296). However, the micromovement values when load was applied were very similar for both types, with the differences between them (p = 0.3867) not found to be statistically significant. The results show that zirconia implants have higher implant stability values than titanium implants. However, the fact that there are no differences in micromobility values implies that caution should be exercised when applying clinical protocols for zirconia based on RFA, which only has evidence for titanium.

Working with Zirconia Implants Requires a Different Approach

The use of ceramic implants has been on the rise in recent years. More and more dental clinicians add this option in their therapy concepts. Also, more and more implant companies add this kind implants to their product portfolio. As mean reason, the growing demand from patients for metal-free restorations can be identified. However, applying zirconia implants is surely not identical to the manipulation of titanium implants. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that practitioners are well informed and decently trained before starting to use these implants. This article gives an overview on the main differences between the 2 types of implants.

Surface Modifications for Zirconia Dental Implants: A Review

Zirconia-based bioceramic is a potential material for dental implants developed and introduced in dentistry 30 years ago. However, some limitations still exist for zirconia implants caused by several factors, such as manufacturing difficulties, low-temperature degradation (LTD), long-term stability, and clinical experience. Several studies validated that some subtle changes on the zirconia surface might significantly impact its mechanical properties and osseointegration. Thus, attention was paid to the effect of surface modification of zirconia implants. This review generally summarizes the surface modifications of zirconia implants to date classified as physical treatment, chemical treatment, and surface coating, aiming to give an overall perspective based on the current situation. In conclusion, surface modification is an effective and essential method for zirconia implant application. However, before clinical use, we need more knowledge about these modification methods.