Sie können Operatoren mit Ihrer Suchanfrage kombinieren, um diese noch präziser einzugrenzen. Klicken Sie auf den Suchoperator, um eine Erklärung seiner Funktionsweise anzuzeigen.
Findet Dokumente, in denen beide Begriffe in beliebiger Reihenfolge innerhalb von maximal n Worten zueinander stehen. Empfehlung: Wählen Sie zwischen 15 und 30 als maximale Wortanzahl (z.B. NEAR(hybrid, antrieb, 20)).
Findet Dokumente, in denen der Begriff in Wortvarianten vorkommt, wobei diese VOR, HINTER oder VOR und HINTER dem Suchbegriff anschließen können (z.B., leichtbau*, *leichtbau, *leichtbau*).
This study analyzed clinical parameters to assess whether dental implant material is a risk factor for peri-implantitis.
Methods
A literature search was performed on PubMed Central, Cochrane, PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus. The PICO strategy involved healthy patient, partially or fully edentulous, receiving at least one dental implant; zirconia or titanium dental implants; comparison involving assessment of whether there were differences in the risk of peri-implantitis among different materials used for dental implants; clinical parameters. Quality assessment was performed using the modified Jadad scale.
Results
Nineteen articles met the inclusion criteria. BoP did not have statistically significant differences comparing zirconia and titanium implants or natural teeth. MBL had diversified results; sometimes, it was higher in zirconia implants than titanium; otherwise, there was no significant difference. Comparing implants with natural teeth, MBL was lower in titanium implants over prolonged observation periods, and greater severity was found in the zirconia group. Notably, natural teeth had minimal bone loss. Zirconia implants demonstrated reduced plaque accumulation and minimal microbial contamination compared to titanium implants and control teeth. The quality assessment was considered poor to low in 9 studies and good to excellent in 10. The development of peri-implantitis was influenced by several patient-specific and clinical factors, underscoring the need to adopt a comprehensive and personalized approach to implant dentistry and peri-implantitis prevention.
Conclusion
It was not possible to draft any solid conclusion for the relationship between implant material and peri-implantitis.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Introduction
Dental implants have significantly transformed Dentistry by offering dependable and long-lasting alternatives for restoring missing teeth [1]. The selection of the implant material is crucial in achieving dental implant success [2]. Since its introduction over forty years ago, commercially pure titanium has been considered the gold standard for intraosseous dental implants [3]. Whereas titanium grade 4 is used in most titanium dental implants, titanium grade 5 is used in titanium alloys, such as Ti-6Al-4 V, which have improved fatigue resistance and strength [4].
Despite titanium's advantageous mechanical properties and biocompatibility, certain disadvantages exist, including the risk of hypersensitivity reactions and peri-implant soft tissue discoloration [5]. Moreover, titanium debris may be detached from the implant surface upon placement. It can trigger DNA damage response signaling in oral epithelial cells, which can disrupt epithelial homeostasis and potentially compromise the oral epithelial barrier [6]. Also, titanium exposure to fluoride or metal alloys in saliva has been shown in earlier research to cause a corrosion event [7]. It has also been suggested that bacterial biofilms may cause titanium implant surface oxidation in an acidic environment, which would trigger inflammatory responses [3]. Zirconia implants have recently emerged as viable alternatives, offering numerous potential benefits and mitigating specific titanium-related challenges [8, 9]. They exhibit enhanced toughness and fracture resistance owing to allotropy, which leads to phase transformation toughening mechanisms [10]. In addition to their exceptional esthetic characteristics, zirconia implants exhibit biocompatibility comparable to titanium implants and reduced plaque affinity [11].
Anzeige
The selection of implant material is determined by various factors, such as biocompatibility, mechanical characteristics, esthetics, and the host's reaction to the material [2, 12]. Furthermore, an important aspect in determining the efficacy of dental implants is the presence of bacterial colonization surrounding them [13]. The type and quantity of bacteria at the abutment–implant contact are essential factors in determining how well the peri-implant tissues function [13, 14]. A modified microbial composition could potentially increase the susceptibility of implants to peri-implantitis [15]. The clinical outcomes of dental implants are significantly influenced by the interplay between inflammatory responses, immunological reactions, and the ability of implant materials to regulate these processes [15].
Peri-implantitis is a peri-implant disease characterized by inflammation and loss of bone tissue surrounding dental implants. It is a crucial and crescent concern in implant dentistry [16, 17]. Gaining insight into the risk factors for peri-implantitis and their association with dental implant materials (titanium and zirconia) is paramount to clinicians [16, 18]. However, identifying risk factors can aid in early detection and timely intervention. Prioritizing peri-implantitis is paramount to achieve effective treatment outcomes and enhance the overall prognosis. Then, dental professionals can closely monitor patients more susceptible to this condition. Previous systematic reviews focused only on titanium and zirconia implants' success/survival rate [3, 8, 19] and their clinical parameters [20]. Then, this review aimed to determine whether dental implant composition increases the risk of peri-implantitis. Thus, the study's objectives were to assess the impact of dental implant material on peri-implantitis, correlating the material used with the likelihood of developing this disease. The null hypothesis was no one material presented a cause specificity correlation for peri-implantitis development.
Materials and Methods
The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) standards were the foundation for constructing the systematic review's framework. The international platform of registered systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (INPLASY) was the registered protocol for this systematic review (202,350,042). This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) criteria [21]. The PICO framework [22] was defined as follows to assess whether dental implant material is a risk factor for peri-implantitis: population (P): systematically healthy, partially or fully edentulous, receiving at least one dental implant; intervention (I): zirconia or titanium dental implants; comparison (C): comparison involving assessment of whether there were differences in the risk of peri-implantitis among different materials used for dental implants (zirconia vs. titanium implants); outcome (O): (i) primary outcomes: Bleeding on Probing (BoP), marginal bone loss (MBL), plaque index (PI), and the secondary outcome was the implant survival rate (SR).
Search Strategy
A detailed search on PubMed Central, Cochrane, PubMed/MedLine, Embase, and Scopus was performed up to October 4, 2023. A search was performed to retrieve scholarly articles that explored whether dental implant material is a risk factor for peri-implantitis. The following combinations of phrases were applied, with modulation according to the database: ("Dental implant materials" OR "Dental implants" OR "Tooth implants" OR "Dental prostheses" OR "Zirconia" OR "Titanium") AND ("Peri-implantitis" OR "Peri-implant infection" OR "Implant failure" OR "Dental implant failure" OR "Osseointegration failure") AND ("Prevalence" OR "Incidence" OR "Epidemiology" OR "Occurrence" OR "risk factors"). The key terms were comprehensively combined in multiple databases.
Anzeige
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
In order for a study to be deemed suitable for this evaluation, it had to fulfill the subsequent requirements: Clinical study published in peer-reviewed journals; studies available in the English language; studies focused on the impact of dental implant material, and the risk factors for peri-implantitis. Studies were excluded for the following reasons: reviews, meta-analyses, abstracts, comments, or editorial articles; they had no methods or results evaluating peri-implantitis and possible risk factors; in vitro studies; and studies conducted on animal models.
Study Selection
After completing the initial search strategy, the articles were selected using a methodical and sequential approach. The Zotero reference manager (https://www.zotero.org/) was used to eliminate duplicate studies, and the remnant studies were subsequently incorporated into the screening phases for review. The screening was performed by two independent authors (DS and SAQ), and in case of divergence, a third author (GVOF) was consulted. A comprehensive evaluation was conducted on all potential articles. Articles not fulfilling the qualifying criteria were excluded during the first screening step, which entailed evaluating titles and abstracts. The full texts of the remaining articles were evaluated using preset criteria for inclusion and exclusion. Accuracy was assessed for articles that fulfilled all inclusion criteria.
Data Extraction and Data Synthesis Methods
Two independent researchers (DS and AAFA) performed data extraction. In case of disagreement, another author was invited to untie. Then, the data were compiled into tables (Microsoft® Excel, v. 16.50, Microsoft Office, Redmond, WA, USA) based on the authors, year of publication, the research design, the sample size, details about the dental implant, report about peri-implantitis, information about the patients, follow-up period, implant survival rate, and clinical information (MBL, PI, and BoP).
Quality Assessment
Each study was assessed using the modified Jadad scale [23]. This eight-item scale evaluated randomized, blinding, withdrawals and dropouts, inclusion and exclusion criteria, adverse effects, and statistical analysis. The score for each article could range from 0 (lowest quality) to 8 (highest quality). Scores of 4–8 denote good to excellent quality and 0–3 poor to low quality. Critical appraisal was conducted by one author (DS) and was verified by another (GVOF).
Results
Selection Process
The search yielded 2196 potential articles, of which 12 duplicates were removed along with seven other articles removed for other reasons. The exclusion criteria, title, and abstract screening excluded 2146 articles. A total of 52 publications were retrieved and subsequently evaluated for eligibility. Thirty-three publications were excluded from the analysis to adhere to the predetermined criteria for inclusion. Nineteen studies [13, 24‐41] were deemed eligible for review after screening, as depicted in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1
PRISMA flowchart for the screening and selection of articles
Table 1 provides a summary of the outcome measures and significant findings. Eight hundred eighty-seven participants were included (most were female adults), with a mean age of over 50 years. The minimum average follow-up duration was six months, and the maximum was 20 years. The implant materials used were single- or two-piece zirconia, titanium, or alloys.
Table 1
Summary of outcome measures and significant findings
Examination of patients with submerged and non-submerged implants
Evaluation of PI, gingival index, PPD, CAL, and MBL
The study compared submerged and non-submerged implants
Submerged implants had higher risks for periodontal complications
Not provided
MBL was significantly higher in the submerged group compared to the non-submerged group
There was a slight increase in bone loss at 24 months
PI was evaluated in the study
It was significantly higher in the submerged group
Submerged implants had higher levels of inflammatory mediators in the peri-implant fluid than non-submerged implants
Submerged implants have a higher risk of periodontal complications—Inflammatory mediator varied in peri-implant fluid, which can indicate elevated risk
67 patients with fixed dental prostheses were examined
Implants were classified as successful, surviving, or failed
Survival rate: 89.5%
20-year implant success rate: 75.8%
Not provided
Implant survival rate was 89.5%. In 92% of implants, radiographs showed crestal bone loss under 1 mm
Only 8% showed peri-implant bone loss > 1 mm
No one had severe bone loss greater than 1.8 mm
During observation, 19 implants had biological complications with suppuration. Among 19 implants, 13.7% were successfully maintained after treatment for 20 years
Technical problems were observed in 32%
Not provided
92% of implants had crestal bone loss below 1 mm
8% of implants had peri-implant bone loss > 1 mm
Implant survival rate of 89.5% after 20 years
75.8% implant success rate after 20 years
8% of implants exhibited peri-implant bone loss > 1 mm
None of the implants exhibited severe bone loss > 1.8 mm
Hollow screw implants had a significantly higher success rate than hollow cylinder implants
It was one of the clinical parameters assessed
Not provided
PI used to evaluate plaque accumulation on implants
A significantly higher success rate and a significantly lower incidence of peri-implantitis were identified for hollow screw design ITI Dental Implants after ten years compared to hollow cylinder design ITI dental implants
Hollow screw design implants had a higher survival rate (95.4%)
Hollow cylinder design implants had a higher incidence of peri-implantitis (29%)
80.9 months (mean). Clinical outcomes evaluated after 80 months
Two-piece zirconia implants
Titanium implants
BoP, MBL, PI
There are no significant differences between zirconia and titanium implants. Limited sample size, results should be interpreted cautiously
No significant difference between groups
Zirconia: 16.43% (SD: 6.16)
Titanium: 12.60% (SD: 7.66)
No information about peri-implantitis was provided
Zirconia implants had 11.07% (SD: 8.11)
Titanium implants had 15.20% (SD: 15.58)
The study compared all-ceramic restorations of zirconia two-piece implants with titanium implants
There are no significant differences between zirconia and titanium implants
There was no significant difference in bone loss between the two types of implants
Clinical Parameters Assessed
Bleeding on Probing (BoP)
For this parameter, it was found that there were no statistically significant differences in the presence of bleeding on probing (BoP) when comparing zirconia and titanium implants or compared them to natural teeth [13, 31, 36, 38, 40]. However, it is worth noting that a study conducted by Kohal et al. [34] reported increased probing depth and bleeding index over three years in a case involving a single-tooth replacement with zirconia implants. Although this finding suggests a potential adverse effect on periodontal health in this scenario, it is crucial to consider that this case was isolated and may not represent the general population.
Furthermore, various studies have observed mixed results when comparing BoP between zirconia and titanium implants. In one study, BoP increased significantly in the titanium implant group but remained stable in the zirconia implant group [39]. Conversely, another study found no significant difference in BoP between zirconia and titanium implants [38]. While the current research on this subject of BoP may be inconclusive, it is crucial to consider a multitude of elements that have the potential to impact the outcomes. These factors include the study design, sample size, implant surface characteristics, and the patient's overall health. Additionally, a comprehensive evaluation of other periodontal parameters, such as the clinical attachment level and plaque accumulation, should be considered to understand better the impact of zirconia and titanium implants on periodontal health.
Marginal Bone Loss (MBL)
This study's reported outcomes were diverse after comparing marginal bone loss (MBL) between zirconia and titanium implants. While some studies have shown that zirconia implants have a higher MBL than titanium implants [27, 28], other studies, such as the one conducted by Payer et al., have found no significant difference in MBL between the two materials [29]. Moreover, some studies have compared the MBL of titanium or zirconia implants with natural teeth. It was observed that titanium implants exhibited less MBL and maintained more consistent bone levels over prolonged observation periods [26]. Conversely, zirconia implants demonstrated a wide range of peri-implant bone loss severity, with some cases showing minimal MBL while others exhibited more substantial bone loss [30, 34, 37]. Notably, the control groups in these trials consisted of natural teeth, which were found to have minimal bone loss. This comparison highlights the importance of monitoring the MBL around dental implants and considering the baseline bone levels of natural teeth as a reference. These findings emphasize the need to investigate further the factors influencing MBL in zirconia and titanium implant restorations. Variables such as implant design, surface characteristics, patient-related factors, and occlusal forces may play a role in the divergent MBL outcomes observed in different studies.
Plaque Index (PI)
Studies examining plaque accumulation, measured by the PI, around zirconia implants have generated varying results, shedding light on the complex relationship between implant material and oral hygiene. Some research has indicated that zirconia implants exhibit lower plaque scores than titanium implants [38, 39] and control teeth [13, 32, 36, 37]. These findings suggest that zirconia implants may be advantageous for maintaining a clean oral environment. Nevertheless, it is imperative to acknowledge a lack of consistent evidence for these findings across every investigation. Some studies have reported no significant differences in plaque scores when comparing zirconia/titanium implants with control teeth [31, 40]. This discrepancy emphasizes the need for further investigation to understand the impact of zirconia implants on plaque accumulation fully. In contrast to the abovementioned observations, Rasul et al. found lower plaque accumulation in titanium implants than in control teeth [41]. This counterintuitive result highlights the complexity of the factors influencing plaque accumulation and encourages additional research to elucidate the specific mechanisms involved.
Quality Assessment
The quality of 9 included studies was framed between poor and low, whereas for the rest, it was considered between good and excellent (Table 2).
Table 2
Quality assessment using the modified Jadad score
Study
Was the study described as randomized?
Was the method of randomization appropriate?
Was the study described as blinded?
Was the method of blinding appropriate?
Was there a description of withdrawals and dropouts?
Was there a clear description of the inclusion/exclusion criteria?
Was the method used to assess adverse effects described?
This systematic review assessed whether dental implant material, specifically zirconia or titanium, can be a risk factor for peri-implantitis by analyzing clinical studies focused on periodontal parameters (BoP, MBL, and plaque index). Understanding this fact enables clinicians to make well-informed decisions, ensure patient safety, and improve patients' overall well-being when undergoing dental implant procedures. The findings of this review revealed that zirconia implants were associated with reduced plaque accumulation compared to titanium implants and control teeth. The clinical trial by Bienz et al. compared the soft tissue architecture surrounding zirconia and titanium implants [39]. Based on their findings, there was an observed increase in plaque control within the groups experiencing mucositis. However, an increase was significantly higher in titanium implants than in zirconia implants when subjected to experimental mucositis settings [39].
Zirconia implants have demonstrated favorable clinical outcomes, including minimal microbial contamination and reduced plaque accumulation compared to teeth [32, 36]. These findings indicate that zirconia implants have the potential to enhance plaque management and minimize plaque buildup owing to their unique material features, such as smooth surface and biocompatibility, which discourage bacterial adhesion [32, 38]. Notably, significant differences in plaque scores were not found between zirconia/titanium implants and teeth [31, 40]. The results may have been impacted by the particular attributes of the participants, including their vulnerability to plaque accumulation and their unique oral hygiene practices. Thorough dental care, adherence to oral hygiene, and implant maintenance are critical for preventing plaque-related issues around dental implants, irrespective of the implant material used.
Anzeige
Regarding MBL, there were significant and non-significant differences in the risk of peri-implantitis between zirconia and titanium implants. In the long run, zirconia and titanium implants showed some level of MBL, with zirconia implants showing higher amounts of bone loss. In a research project by Koller et al., over 80 months, the performance of two-piece zirconia implants was compared to titanium implants [38]. The average MBL for zirconia implants was − 1.38 mm; whereas, titanium implants had an average marginal bone loss of − 1.17 mm. This difference was not statistically significant [38]. Similar outcomes were reported by Payer et al. [29]. Conversely, other authors found that zirconia implants were associated with a greater MBL than titanium implants, and the results were statistically significant [27, 28].
Some studies have compared titanium or zirconia implants with the control group filled with natural teeth. Titanium implants exhibited less and more consistent MBL across the prolonged observation periods [26]. On the other hand, zirconia implants demonstrated a range of severity of peri-implant bone loss, whereby some cases reported less MBL while others exhibited more significant loss [30, 34, 37]. These results may be difficult to contextualize; however, titanium implants were consistently associated with less MBL than zirconia implants. These findings highlight titanium implants' enduring stability and reliability, which helps to solidify their status as the “gold standard” in Implant Dentistry. Reduced MBL in titanium implants indicates improved health of the peri-implant tissues, which is a critical factor for the success and survival of dental implants in the long-term.
Most of the included studies have reported non-significant statistical differences in the biological outcome parameter (BoP) comparing zirconia and titanium implants and also comparing zirconia/titanium implants to control teeth [13, 31, 36, 38]. However, Kohal et al. noted increased probing depth and bleeding index over three years in a single-tooth replacement utilizing zirconia implants [38]. Other studies have compared BoP between zirconia and titanium implants and found mixed results. There was a notable rise in BoP within the titanium group; whereas, the zirconia group exhibited a consistently lower level of BoP [39]. These findings underscore the significance of considering the composition of the implant material and the therapeutic procedures within the framework of BOP and the health of peri-implant tissues.
Moreover, one-piece zirconia implants demonstrated excellent short-term survival outcomes (100%). In a study conducted by Kniha et al., an examination was carried out to evaluate alterations in the peri-implant crestal bone surrounding zirconia implants in patients with both periodontal health and periodontal impairment [36]. The results revealed a 100% survival rate after a one-year follow-up period. Similar results have been previously reported [30, 32, 37]. The survival outcomes for titanium ranged from 89 to 94% over a follow-up of 10–20 years [24, 26]. These findings revealed that the survival outcomes of both titanium implants were comparable. It was also observed that detachment and repositioning of abutments may result in 0.2 mm bone loss [42].
Anzeige
There is a lack of evidence to confirm the role of corrosion by-products and titanium particles, a nonplaque forming factor leading to peri-implantitis. This subject was evaluated by researchers [6], who indicated that titanium debris might be detached from the implant surface upon implant placement, which can trigger DDR signaling in oral epithelial cells, contributing to the disruption of epithelial homeostasis and potentially compromising the oral epithelial barrier. Therefore, there is minimal evidence that peri-implant bone loss occurs due to a persistent foreign body reaction once osseointegration has been established [43].
Certain limitations may have influenced the findings of this study. In various studies, diverse implant thread designs, surface properties, and prosthetic superstructures have made direct comparisons difficult. It may not be entirely acceptable to compare the clinical results of implants in the midpalate region for overdenture retention with those in the edentulous ridge. To address these challenges, further research involving high-quality RCTs and CCTs is required to compare the effects of titanium and zirconia on the prevalence of peri-implantitis. To make valid comparisons, these studies must use standardized research methods, well-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria, and extended follow-up periods.
Limitations of the Study and Potential Sources of Bias
Although these findings offer some insights, they have limitations and potential sources of bias. Some of the limitations and potential biases are as follows: (1) Tt was not possible to develop a meta-analysis because this systematic review contains research with different designs, sample sizes, patient demographics, implant types, follow-up, and techniques. Heterogeneity may cause discrepancies and complicate conclusions; (2) some studies included had small sample sizes, which reduced the statistical power and precision of the results. Small sample sizes may not adequately represent the true population characteristics and may increase the risk of obtaining spurious findings; (3) some studies have relatively short follow-up periods, which may not be sufficient to assess long-term implant success or failure. Dental implants can manifest complications or failures over extended periods, and shorter follow-up durations may not capture such events.
Recommendations for Future Studies
The current literature on titanium and zirconia dental implants indicates several potential avenues for further research: (1) Future research endeavors should encompass long-term comparative studies with larger sample sizes to comprehensively assess the effectiveness of titanium and zirconia implants over extended durations. This will help establish the longevity and durability of both implant types and provide more comprehensive insights into their clinical outcomes; (2) researchers should be encouraged to adopt standardized methodologies, including consistent outcome measures and study protocols. This will reduce heterogeneity across studies and enhance the reliability of the results, making it easier to compare and combine the findings in future meta-analyses; (3) conduct more prospective RCTs comparing titanium and zirconia implants. RCTs are considered the “gold standard” study in research and provide robust evidence for clinical decision-making; (4) to investigate the performance of titanium and zirconia implants in specific patient groups, such as individuals with systemic diseases, compromised bone conditions, or other risk factors. This will facilitate a more comprehensive understanding of the performance characteristics of these materials in various clinical settings; (5) future studies should include patient-reported outcomes and quality-of-life assessments to gauge patient satisfaction with both implant types. This information is crucial for determining which material may provide a better overall patient experience; (6) study of how implant design and surface alterations affect titanium and zirconia implant success. Subtle implant properties may affect clinical performance; (7) data on complications and adverse events associated with titanium and zirconia implants were systematically collected to understand their safety profiles and potential risks better; (8) conduct cost-effectiveness and economic evaluations comparing titanium and zirconia implants over the long-term. This information will be valuable to healthcare providers, patients, and policymakers when making decisions regarding implant materials; (9) collaborative multicenter studies must be considered to increase the generalized ability of the findings and ensure a diverse patient population. By adhering to these study standards, dental patients and professionals can enhance dental treatment outcomes by making informed choices regarding implant materials.
Anzeige
Conclusion
Within the limitation of this systematic study, it was not possible to address that the implant’s material has a possible relationship with the onset of peri-implantitis. Comparing titanium/zirconia implants to control teeth, zirconia exhibited some benefits, such as reduced plaque formation and decreased microbiological contamination. Most studies found no statistically significant differences between zirconia and titanium implants or control teeth. Furthermore, over time, zirconia and titanium implants both showed some level of marginal bone loss, with zirconia implants presenting higher bone loss. Although implant material selection may impact plaque formation and microbiological contamination, it is not the only risk factor for peri-implantitis. Many patient-specific and clinical factors may influence peri-implantitis development, highlighting the necessity of implementing an all-encompassing and individualized strategy for implant dentistry and peri-implantitis prevention.
Acknowledgements
None.
Declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval and Consent to Participate
Not Applicable.
Consent to Publication
Not Applicable.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Karthik K, Thangaswamy V (2013) Evaluation of implant success: a review of past and present concepts. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 5(Suppl 1):S117–S119PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
2.
Hanawa T (2020) Zirconia versus titanium in dentistry: a review. Dent Mater J 39:24–36PubMedCrossRef
3.
Padhye NM, Calciolari E, Zuercher AN, Tagliaferri S, Donos N (2023) Survival and success of zirconia compared with titanium implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig 27:6279–6290PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
4.
Guehennec L (2007) Surface treatments of titanium dental implants for rapid osseointegration. Dent mater 23:844–854PubMedCrossRef
5.
Thoma DS, Cathomen E, Hämmerle CHF, Hüsler J, Jung RE (2016) Discoloration of the peri-implant mucosa caused by zirconia and titanium implants. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 36:39–45PubMedCrossRef
6.
Amo FS-L, Rudek I, Wagner V, Martins M, O’Valle F, Galindo-Moreno P, Giannobile WV, Wang H-L, Castilho RM (2017) Titanium activates the DNA damage response pathway in oral epithelial cells: a pilot study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 32:1413–20CrossRef
7.
Toumelin-Chemla F, Rouelle F, Burdairon G (1996) Corrosive properties of fluoride-containing odontologic gels against titanium. J Dent 24:109–115PubMedCrossRef
8.
Hashim D, Cionca N, Courvoisier DS, Mombelli A (2016) A systematic review of the clinical survival of zirconia implants. Clin Oral Investig 20:1403–1417PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
Andreiotelli M, Wenz HJ, Kohal R (2009) Are ceramic implants a viable alternative to titanium implants? A systematic literature review. Clin Oral Implants Res 20:32–47PubMedCrossRef
11.
Depprich R, Naujoks C, Ommerborn M, Schwarz F, Kübler NR, Handschel J (2014) Current findings regarding zirconia implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 16:124–137PubMedCrossRef
12.
Alqahtani AR, Desai SR, Patel JR, Alqhtani NR, Alqahtani AS, Heboyan A, Fernandes GVO, Mustafa M, Karobari MI (2023) Investigating the impact of diameters and thread designs on the biomechanics of short implants placed in D4 bone: a 3D finite element analysis. BMC Oral Health 23:686PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
13.
Lorenz J, Giulini N, Hölscher W, Schwiertz A, Schwarz F, Sader R (2019) Prospective controlled clinical study investigating long-term clinical parameters, patient satisfaction, and microbial contamination of zirconia implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 21:263–271PubMedCrossRef
14.
Teixeira W, Nascimento C, Pereira A, Martins R, Mendonça G, de Oliveira Fernandes GVO, Wang H-L, Pedrazzi V (2023) Bacterial leakage evaluation through DNA-DNA checkerboard hybridization technique in Morse taper implant-abutment connections: an in vitro study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 38:313–320PubMedCrossRef
15.
Belibasakis GN, Manoil D (2021) Microbial community-driven etiopathogenesis of peri-implantitis. J Dent Res 100:21–28PubMedCrossRef
16.
Wada M, Mameno T, Otsuki M, Kani M, Tsujioka Y, Ikebe K (2021) Prevalence and risk indicators for peri-implant diseases: a literature review. Jap Dental Sci Rev 57:78–84CrossRef
17.
Martins BGS, Fernandes JCH, Martins AG, Castilho RM, Fernandes GVO (2022) Surgical and nonsurgical treatment protocols for peri-implantitis: an overview of systematic reviews. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 37:660–676PubMedCrossRef
18.
Alarcón-Sánchez MA, Heboyan A, Fernandes GVO, Castro-Alarcón N, Romero-Castro NS (2023) Potential impact of prosthetic biomaterials on the periodontium: a comprehensive review. Molecules 28:1075PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
19.
Elnayef B, Lazaro A, Suárez-López del Amo F, Galindo-Moreno P, Wang H-L, Gargallo-Albiol J, Hernández-Alfaro F (2017) Zirconia implants as an alternative to titanium: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 32:e125–e134PubMedCrossRef
20.
Fuda S, Martins BGS, Castro FC, Heboyan A, Gehrke SA, Fernandes JCH, Mello-Moura ACV, Fernandes GVO (2023) Marginal bone level and clinical parameter analysis comparing external hexagon and morse taper implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diagnostics 13:1587PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
21.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) PRISMA group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 151:264–9PubMedCrossRef
22.
Schardt C, Adams MB, Owens T, Keitz S, Fontelo P (2007) Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 7:1–6CrossRef
23.
Oremus M, Wolfson C, Perrault A, Demers L, Momoli F, Moride Y (2001) Interrater reliability of the modified Jadad quality scale for systematic reviews of Alzheimer’s disease drug trials. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 12:232–236PubMedCrossRef
24.
Karoussis IK, Brägger U, Salvi GE, Bürgin W, Lang NP (2004) Effect of implant design on survival and success rates of titanium oral implants: a 10-year prospective cohort study of the ITI® dental implant system. Clin Oral Implants Res 15:8–17PubMedCrossRef
25.
Venza M, Visalli M, Lo Giudice G, Cicciu M, Passi P, Teti D (2009) Changes in inflammatory mediators in peri-implant fluid after implant insertion. J Periodontol 80:297–306PubMedCrossRef
26.
Chappuis V, Buser R, Brägger U, Bornstein MM, Salvi GE, Buser D (2013) Long-term outcomes of dental implants with a titanium plasma-sprayed surface: a 20-year prospective case series study in partially edentulous patients. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 15:780–790PubMedCrossRef
27.
Osman RB, Swain MV, Atieh M, Ma S, Duncan W (2014) Ceramic implants (Y-TZP): are they a viable alternative to titanium implants for the support of overdentures? A randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 25:1366–1377PubMedCrossRef
28.
Siddiqi A, Kieser JA, De Silva RK, Thomson WM, Duncan WJ (2015) Soft and hard tissue response to zirconia versus titanium one-piece implants placed in alveolar and palatal sites: a randomized control trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 17:483–496PubMedCrossRef
29.
Payer M, Heschl A, Koller M, Arnetzl G, Lorenzoni M, Jakse N (2015) All-ceramic restoration of zirconia two-piece implants–a randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 26:371–376PubMedCrossRef
30.
Borgonovo AE, Censi R, Vavassori V, Arnaboldi O, Maiorana C, Re D (2015) Zirconia implants in esthetic areas: 4-Year follow-up evaluation study. Int J Dent 2015:415029PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
31.
Schwarz F, John G, Hegewald A, Becker J (2015) Non-surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis at zirconia implants: a prospective case series. J Clin Periodontol 42:783–788PubMedCrossRef
32.
Holländer J, Lorenz J, Stübinger S, Hölscher W, Heidemann D, Ghanaati S, Sader R (2016) Zirconia dental implants: investigation of clinical parameters, patient satisfaction, and microbial contamination. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 31:855–864PubMedCrossRef
33.
Horikawa T, Odatsu T, Itoh T, Soejima Y, Morinaga H, Abe N, Tsuchiya N, Iijima T, Sawase T (2017) Retrospective cohort study of rough-surface titanium implants with at least 25 years’ function. Int J Implant Dent 3:42PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
34.
Kohal R, Spies BC, Bauer A, Butz F (2018) One-piece zirconia oral implants for single-tooth replacement: three-year results from a long-term prospective cohort study. J Clin Periodontol 45:114–124PubMedCrossRef
35.
Safioti LM, Kotsakis GA, Pozhitkov AE, Chung WO, Daubert DM (2017) Increased levels of dissolved titanium are associated with peri-implantitis–a cross-sectional study. J Periodontol 88:436–442PubMedCrossRef
36.
Kniha K, Milz S, Kniha H, Ayoub N, Hölzle F, Modabber A (2018) Peri-implant crestal bone changes around zirconia implants in periodontally healthy and compromised patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 33(217):222
37.
Rodriguez AE, Monzavi M, Yokoyama CL, Nowzari H (2018) Zirconia dental implants: a clinical and radiographic evaluation. J Esthet Restor Dent 30:538–544PubMedCrossRef
38.
Koller M, Steyer E, Theisen K, Stagnell S, Jakse N, Payer M (2020) Two-piece zirconia versus titanium implants after 80 months: clinical outcomes from a prospective randomized pilot trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 31:388–396PubMedCrossRef
39.
Bienz SP, Hilbe M, Hüsler J, Thoma DS, Hämmerle CHF, Jung RE (2021) Clinical and histological comparison of the soft tissue morphology between zirconia and titanium dental implants under healthy and experimental mucositis conditions—a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 48:721–733PubMedCrossRef
40.
Delucchi F, Pozzetti E, Bagnasco F, Pesce P, Baldi D, Pera F et al (2021) Peri-implant tissue behaviour next to different titanium surfaces: 16-year post-trial follow-up. Appl Sci 11:9625CrossRef
41.
Rasul J, Thakur MK, Maheshwari B, Aga N, Kumar H, Mahajani M (2021) Assessment of titanium level in submucosal plaque around healthy implants and implants with peri-implantitis: a clinical study. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 13:S383–S386PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
42.
De Pascalis F (2022) Soft tissue integration with a hybrid abutment using the “one abutment–one time” therapeutic protocol: case series. Quintessence Int (Berl) 53:590
43.
Ivanovski S, Bartold PM, Huang Y (2000) The role of foreign body response in peri-implantitis: what is the evidence? Periodontol 2022(90):176–185
Für die Therapie von Patientinnen – betroffen sind fast ausschließlich Frauen – mit Lipödem existiert eine Reihe von Optionen, mit einem eindeutigen Favoriten in puncto Effektivität. Ein großes Problem ist jedoch die korrekte Diagnose.
Wenn sich in der Medizin verhängnisvolle Komplikationen oder Fehler ereignen, gibt es neben den betroffenen Patienten oft ein zweites Opfer: die behandelnden Ärztinnen oder Ärzte. Eine dafür besonders anfällige Disziplin ist die Chirurgie.
Ergebnisse einer Metaanalyse sprechen dafür, dass eine adjuvante präoperative Behandlung mit 5-Alpha-Reduktase-Inhibitoren bei Männern mit benigner Prostatahyperplasie zu einem geringeren Blutverlust während einer transurethralen Prostataresektion (TURP) beitragen kann.
Den heißen Tee in der Hand und die Wärmflasche auf dem Bauch: Gerade im Winter bringt man solche Situationen im Allgemeinen mit Wohlbehangen in Verbindung. Ein chirurgisches Team warnt jedoch mit einer Serie von Verbrühungsfällen vor Unachtsamkeit.
