Leading Research Paper
Dental Implants
Comparison of zirconia and titanium implants after a short healing period. A pilot study in minipigs

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2010.01.015Get rights and content

Abstract

The aim of this animal study was to investigate and compare the osseointegration of zirconia and titanium dental implants. 14 one-piece zirconia implants and 7 titanium implants were inserted into the mandibles of 7 minipigs. The zirconia implants were alternately placed submerged and non-submerged. To enable submerged healing, the supraosseous part was removed, using a diamond saw. The titanium implants were all placed submerged. After a healing period of 4 weeks, a histological analysis of the soft and hard tissue and a histomorphometric analysis of the bone–implant contact (BIC) and relative peri-implant bone-volume density (rBVD; relation to bone-volume density of the host bone) was performed. Two zirconia implants were found to be loose. All other implants were available for evaluation. For submerged zirconia and titanium implants, the implant surface showed an intimate connection to the neighbouring bone, with both types achieving a BIC of 53%. For the non-submerged zirconia implants, some crestal epithelial downgrowth could be detected, with a resultant BIC of 48%. Highest rBVD values were found for submerged zirconia (80%), followed by titanium (74%) and non-submerged zirconia (63%). The results suggest that unloaded zirconia and titanium implants osseointegrate comparably, within the healing period studied.

Section snippets

Materials and methods

The study was performed on 7 one-year-old miniature pigs. Two types of implants were studied: zirconia and titanium. Zirconia implants (diameter 4 mm, length 10 mm) were manufactured from yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystalline (whiteSKY, Bredent, Germany). The surface was sandblasted. According to the producers, the physical surface roughness parameters were: Ra 1.0 μm and Rt 7.2 μm. Titanium implants (Xive, Dentsply, Friadent, Germany) had a sandblasted, acid-etched surface, Ra 2.75 

Results

All animals survived the treatment and were available for evaluation. One submerged zirconia implant was lost and was unavailable for histological examination. The clinical intraoral examination performed prior to death showed one non-submerged zirconia implant to be clinically mobile. The remaining 19 implants did not show any signs of inflammation and were clinically stable. The non-submerged implants showed a tight adaptation of the peri-implant mucosa to the implant body. There was no

Discussion

The purpose of the present study was to compare the healing of submerged and non-submerged, sandblasted zirconia implants in the mandible of seven minipigs after a short healing period of 4 weeks, and to compare this with sandblasted, acid-etched titanium implants.

Soft tissue evaluation revealed that non-submerged zirconia implants showed a close soft tissue adaptation and prove to be highly biocompatible. Analysis of the hard tissue healing of both submerged and non-submerged zirconia implants

Competing interests

None declared.

Funding

The study was funded by the department's own resources. The zirconia implants were donated by Bredent medical.

Ethical approval

The study protocol was approved by the Commission for Animal Studies at the District Government Office, Dresden, Germany.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Mrs Ines Kleiber, Mr Volkmar Lieder, Dr Roland Jung and Dr Kathrin Spekl for their extensive assistance during the study period. Further we thank Mr. Ian Chambers for helping to prepare the manuscript.

References (29)

  • B. Cales et al.

    Mechanical properties and surface analysis of retrieved zirconia hip joint heads after an implantation time of two to three years

    J Mater Sci Mater Med

    (1994)
  • P. Christel et al.

    Mechanical properties and short-term in-vivo evaluation of yttrium-oxide-partially-stabilized zirconia

    J Biomed Mater Res

    (1989)
  • D. Cochran et al.

    Clinical field trial examining an implant with a sand-blasted, acid-etched surface

    J Periodontol

    (2007)
  • R. Depprich et al.

    Osseointegration of zirconia implants compared with titanium: an in vivo study

    Head Face Med

    (2008)
  • Cited by (79)

    • The primary stability of two dental implant systems in low-density bone

      2022, International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
    • Influence of laser texturing on surface features, mechanical properties and low-temperature degradation behavior of 3Y-TZP

      2020, Ceramics International
      Citation Excerpt :

      Zirconia is widely used as a biomaterial due to its combination of biocompatibility and desirable mechanical properties [1,2]. In terms of osseointegration and biocompatibility, several studies have shown that zirconia implants exhibit comparable results to titanium implants [3,4]. Furthermore, zirconia have shown enhanced features over titanium, such as high affinity to soft tissue, aesthetical and non-carcinogenic properties [2,5].

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text