 |
|
REVIEW |
|
| Year : 2015 | Volume
: 5
| Issue : 3 | Page : 147-156 |
|
| Zirconia in dental implantology: A review |
|
|
Abhishek Apratim1, Prashanti Eachempati1, Kiran Kumar Krishnappa Salian1, Vijendra Singh2, Saurabh Chhabra3, Sanket Shah4
1 Department of Prosthodontics, Melaka Manipal Medical College, Melaka, Malaysia
2 Department of Periodontics, Melaka Manipal Medical College, Melaka, India
3 Department of Dentistry, New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC), New Delhi, India
4 Department of Prosthodontics, Vaidik Dental College, Daman, Gujarat, India, India
| Date of Web Publication | 3-Jul-2015 |
Correspondence Address:
Abhishek Apratim
Melaka Manipal Medical College, Jalan Batu Hampar, Bukit Baru, Melaka - 75150
Malaysia
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/2231-0762.158014
|
|
 Abstract | | |
Background: Titanium has been the most popular material of choice for dental implantology over the past few decades. Its properties have been found to be most suitable for the success of implant treatment. But recently, zirconia is slowly emerging as one of the materials which might replace the gold standard of dental implant, i.e., titanium. Materials and Methods: Literature was searched to retrieve information about zirconia dental implant and studies were critically analyzed. PubMed database was searched for information about zirconia dental implant regarding mechanical properties, osseointegration, surface roughness, biocompatibility, and soft tissue health around it. The literature search was limited to English language articles published from 1975 to 2015. Results: A total of 45 papers met the inclusion criteria for this review, among the relevant search in the database. Conclusion: Literature search showed that some of the properties of zirconia seem to be suitable for making it an ideal dental implant, such as biocompatibility, osseointegration, favourable soft tissue response and aesthetics due to light transmission and its color. At the same time, some studies also point out its drawbacks. It was also found that most of the studies on zirconia dental implants are short-term studies and there is a need for more long-term clinical trials to prove that zirconia is worth enough to replace titanium as a biomaterial in dental implantology.
Keywords: Biocompatibility, mechanical properties, osseointegration, surface roughening, titanium dental implant, zirconia, zirconia and biocompatibility, zirconia and implant surface coating, zirconia and osseointegration, zirconia dental implant
How to cite this article:
Apratim A, Eachempati P, Krishnappa Salian KK, Singh V, Chhabra S, Shah S. Zirconia in dental implantology: A review. J Int Soc Prevent Communit Dent 2015;5:147-56 |
How to cite this URL:
Apratim A, Eachempati P, Krishnappa Salian KK, Singh V, Chhabra S, Shah S. Zirconia in dental implantology: A review. J Int Soc Prevent Communit Dent [serial online] 2015 [cited 2022 Mar 3];5:147-56. Available from: https://www.jispcd.org/text.asp?2015/5/3/147/158014 |
| Introduction | |  |
Dental implants have improved the quality of life for many patients. [1] Currently titanium and titanium alloys are most widely used as dental implants due to their excellent biocompatibility, good mechanical properties, and long term follow-up in clinical success. [2],[3] Even though titanium is a popular material, it has certain disadvantages such as greyish color, which is unaesthetic, especially in the anterior region where the gingival tissue is considerably thin. [4] Some studies have also reported of galvanic reaction that occurs after it comes in contact with saliva and fluoride. [5] Inflammatory response and bone resorption were also found to be induced due to titanium particles. [6]
In the last few years, zirconia dental implant has emerged as an alternative for titanium implant due to its potential to osseointegrate [7],[8],[9] and having other beneficial properties like its translucency and white color which mimics the natural teeth. [10],[11] It is radiopaque similar to titanium and can be easily visualized on the radiograph. [12] Bacterial colonization around zirconia is found to be less as compared to that with titanium. [13] Some studies have reported that zirconia has more biocompatibility as compared to titanium, as the latter produces corrosion products at the implant site. [5]
This review of literature aims to discuss various properties of zirconia like osseointegration, biocompatibility, and less bacterial colonization, which make it a biomaterial suitable to be used as dental implant, and tries to find out whether the researches done till date authenticate its use.
| Materials and Methods | | |
Literature search was done from 1975 to 2015 in PubMed database regarding mechanical properties, osseointegration, biocompatibility, soft tissue response, and antibacterial adhesion properties of zirconia. Literature search was only limited to English language articles. Keywords used in literature search were Zirconia Dental Implant, Zirconia AND Osseointegration, Zirconia AND soft tissue response, Zirconia AND Biocompatibility. Abstract were screened and full texts of potentially eligible articles were obtained. All articles on surface coating of zirconia on implant surfaces, are excluded from the review.
A total of 45 papers met the inclusion criteria for the review. All of these papers included in-vitro studies, in-vivo studies and case reports. Results of the literature search were discussed under different sections.
Mechanical properties of zirconia implants
Yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystalline (Y-TZP) materials exhibit superior corrosion and wear resistance, as well as a high flexural strength (800-1000 MPa) compared to other dental ceramics [14],[15],[16],[17] [Table 1]. It was also found that flexural strength of zirconia increases by mechanical modification of its surface. [18] When the compressive strength of blade type of zirconia implants was tested, it was found to be adequate in occlusion . [19] Fracture strength (512.9 N) of unloaded zirconia was found to be more than the fracture strength (401.7 N) of loaded zirconia [20] [Table 1]. A study performed by Kohal et al. found low fracture strength of two-piece zirconia implants in both loaded and unloaded conditions, due to which they were not recommended for clinical use [21] [Table 1]. It was also found that the implant preparation and cyclic loading decrease the fracture strength of one-piece zirconia implants, but these values were still within clinically acceptable limits to withstand average occlusal forces even after an extended interval of artificial loading. [22] Whereas Silva et al. reported in their study that crown preparation had no influence on the reliability of one-piece ceramic implant [23] [Table 1].
ZrO 2 is a polymorphic material and occurs in three forms: Monoclinic, tetragonal, and cubic. The monoclinic phase is stable at room temperatures up to 1170°C, the tetragonal at temperatures of 1170-2370°C, and the cubic form at over 2370°C. [24],[25] Alloying pure zirconia with stabilizing oxides, such as CaO, MgO, Y 2 O 3 , or CeO 2 , allows the retention of the metastable tetragonal structure at room temperature. Dental procedures, such as grinding or sandblasting, can trigger a tetragonal to monoclinic transformation in the surface region. [15] Transformation from tetragonal phase to monoclinic phase is associated with volume expansion. This phase transformation results in compression of cracks, thereby retarding its growth and enhancing fracture toughness. This martensitic-like mechanism is known as transformation toughening. [26]
Due to severe environmental conditions of moisture and stress, the resulting zirconia may transform more aggressively to the monoclinic phase with catastrophic results. This type of high metastability is not good for dental implants. This mechanical property degradation in zirconia is known as "aging" of the material. [25] The transformation is enhanced in water or in vapor, while the most critical enhancing effects of temperature occur in the range of 200-300°C. [27],[28] The transformation from tetragonal to monoclinic starts from surface and progresses to the core of the material. When the monoclinic phase dominates, it leads to reduction in strength, toughness, and density, which in turn leads to microcracking on the surface. This microcrack formation leads to penetration of water and causes corrosion. [27] Low temperature degradation of the material involves roughening, increased wear and microcracking, grain pull-out, generation of particle debris, and premature failure. [29] The aging process depends on various factors like porosity, residual stresses, grain size, and the content of stabilizer. [30] It was found that decrease in grain size and increase in stabilizing oxide content reduce the transformation rate. [28] Aging is accelerated due to changes in processing technique and can be avoided by more accurate processing. [27] Some in vitro studies have found that the aging reduces the mechanical properties of zirconia, even though within clinical acceptable limits, in simulated dental treatment conditions. [31],[32]
Osseointegration of zirconia implants
One of the most important criteria for the success of implant treatment is osseointegration. Bone apposition takes place on different types of implant surfaces and depends on surface roughness of the implant. [33],[34] Studies have shown that zirconia coating on the surface of titanium implants favours bone apposition, [35],[36] which was found to be more than that of titanium implants with no coating.
Akagawa et al., in their study, found no significant difference in bone implant contact (BIC) between the loaded and unloaded zirconia implants. The BIC was 81.9% for the unloaded group and 69.8% for the loaded group [7] [Table 2].
Another study which examined the role of osseointegration around one-stage zirconia screw implant under various conditions for loading showed no difference in bone contact ratio among the single freestanding, connected freestanding, and implant-tooth supports of partially stabilized zirconia implants. [37] These findings were in agreement with another study which compared the BIC of submerged zirconia and non-submerged zirconia implants with submerged titanium as the control [38] [Table 2].
When BIC of zirconia implants was compared with that of titanium and alumina, there was no statistical difference between the BIC of all three types of implants. [39] Relatively bone healing around zirconia implants was found to be more than around titanium implants. [40] Some studies indicated that the zirconia implants might withstand occlusal loads over a longer period of time. [37],[41]
Similar rate of bone apposition on zirconia and surface-modified titanium implant surfaces during early healing was found when a histological examination of early bone apposition around zirconia dental implants at 2 and 4 weeks after insertion was compared to that of surface-modified titanium implants. [42] There was no difference in osseointegration between acid-etched zirconia implants and acid-etched titanium implants. [43],[44],[45] This was true even when the implant surfaces were pharmacologically and chemically modified [46] [Table 2].
Surface roughness of zirconia implants
While direct bone apposition can occur on different types of surfaces, it has been demonstrated that a certain degree of surface roughness is beneficial in accelerating bone apposition to the implant surface. [33],[34] Since reduced treatment time is practiced more commonly in implant dentistry, the smooth surface of zirconia implants appears to be a disadvantage. [47] A study performed to investigate the osteoblastic response to Y-TZP with different surface topographies to increase the surface roughness by airborne particle abrasion and additionally acid etching showed cell proliferation with statistically significant higher values on day 3 for surface-treated zirconia as compared with machined zirconia. But no differences were found between the zirconia groups and sandblasted/acid-etched (SLA) titanium at 6 and 12 days. [48] It also found that roughening the zirconia implants enhances bone apposition and has a beneficial effect on the interfacial shear strength, [49] which was later contradicted by Hoffmann et al. [50]
High hardness of the zirconia implants makes the process of surface roughening very difficult. So, recently, laser has been used to engrave a pattern on the zirconia surface. A scanning electron microscopic (SEM) study done to find the influence of erbium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet (Er: YAG), carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), and diode laser irradiation on the surface properties of polished zirconia implants demonstrated that diode and Er: YAG lasers did not cause any visible surface alterations. However, the CO 2 laser produced distinct surface alterations to zirconia. [51]
Measurement of osseointegration
Torque removal forces have been used as a biomechanical measure of anchorage or osseointegration in which the greater forces required to remove implants may be interpreted as an increase in the strength of osseointegration. [52]
In the study of Sennerby et al., it was found that coated zirconia implants and titanium implants showed higher removal torque value than the machined zirconia implants. The findings suggested that surface-modified zirconia implants can reach firm stability in bone. [53] In another study wherein the removal torque values of machined zirconia implants, sandblasted zirconia implants, and acid-etched titanium implant were evaluated, machined zirconia had the least removal torque value. Acid-etched titanium implants had the highest removal torque value, followed by sandblasted zirconia implants. The findings suggest that sandblasted zirconia implants can achieve a higher stability in bone than machined zirconia implants. [49] Even when the zirconia was coated on titanium implants, it increased the removal torque value. [54] But in one of the studies that compared the biomechanical properties of six types of implant surfaces, it was found that removal torque value of zirconia implants was the least. [55]
It can be concluded that the removal of torque value of zirconia implants was improved after surface modification, but was not more than that of titanium implants.
Biocompatibility of zirconia implants
Various in vitro tests were conducted on osteoblasts, fibroblasts, lymphocytes, monocytes, and macrophages to test the biocompatibility of zirconia. It was observed that zirconia had no cytotoxic effect on osteoblasts and made the cells capable of elaborating the extracellular matrix by synthesizing various essential and structural proteins. [56] Zirconia does not induce pseudo-teratogenic effect, which makes it biocompatible. [57],[58],[59] Laser-modified zirconia showed better adhesion to osteoblasts due to the better wettability characteristics. [41] Zirconia does not provoke any inflammation pathway, as reported by Liagre et al. [60]
Wear products of zirconia could be cytotoxic as compared to titanium and other ceramics, when tested with fibroblasts. [61] But it was also noted that further studies are required to substantiate the evidence. Both powder and particles of zirconia tested in vitro on different cell lines (human and murine) of lymphocytes, monocytes, or macrophages did not induce high cytotoxicity or inflammation. [62]
Biocompatibility tests were also conducted in vivo for zirconia, and it was found that when it was implanted in the soft tissue, it became encapsulated by a thin layer of fibrous tissue similar to that seen in the case of alumina. [63],[64] Also, there was no cytotoxicity in the soft tissue in relation to wear products of zirconia. [65] Zirconia was also found to be biocompatible to hard tissue when tested in vivo according to the findings of a study which inserted pellets of stabilized zirconia with 6% Y 2 O 3 into the femur of monkeys. [66] When compared with alumina, zirconia showed no difference in bone reaction. [67],[68] In the study by Kohal et al., it was found that cell proliferation around zirconia was comparable to titanium, but surface modification of zirconia did not show improvement in osseointegration. [69] Biocompatibility of zirconia was also found to be good in another study conducted by Gredes et al., in which they tested a newly created zirconia implant. [70]
Soft tissue response to zirconia implants
Studies conducted on the soft tissue response of zirconia implants [Table 3] have reported comparable findings for both zirconia and titanium. Tete et al. found that the collagen fiber orientation around zirconia implants was parallel to the implant surface, similar to that of titanium. [71] Brakel et al. reported that zirconia had similar probing depth as titanium. [72] Regarding the healing of soft tissue around the zirconia abutment and titanium abutment, it was reported by Wellander et al. that titanium had better soft tissue healing as compared to zirconia. The distance from the peri-implant mucosa to the apical termination of the barrier epithelium for zirconia was found to be less than that of titanium. The same study also found that zirconia had less mucosal color change as compared to titanium, [73] which was contradicted by Zembic et al. [74] Brakel et al. found no significant difference in the soft tissue response around zirconia and titanium abutments. [75] This finding was similar to the study finding of Kohal et al., wherein zirconia and titanium implants were inserted in the extraction sites of monkeys and both implants showed same peri-implant soft tissue dimensions. [9]
Bacterial colonization around zirconia implants
Bacterial colonisation is commonly found around the natural tooth due to humid environment and constant temperature inside the oral cavity. [76] Since the microflora around implants is similar to that of natural teeth, microbial pathogens (i.e. Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans, Porphyromonas gingivalis, or Prevotella intermedia) associated with periodontitis may contribute to implant failure. [76] When zirconia was introduced in orthopedics, some studies evaluated the adhesion of oral bacteria in vitro. [62] In a study which compared the inhibition of growth and adhesion of selected oral bacteria on titanium and zirconia, difference was found in the adhesion of some selected oral bacteria [Table 4]. But in an in vivo study, zirconia showed significantly lesser adhesion of bacteria than titanium, [13],[77] which was contradicted by Brakel et al. and Egawa et al., who reported that the bacterial adhesion of zirconia was similar to that of titanium. [72],[78]
With fewer studies on bacterial adhesion on zirconia surface, it can be concluded that plaque formation on this surface might be less. [72],[79]
| Conclusion | | |
Limited amount of research on zirconia proves that zirconia is biocompatible with the surrounding tissues. Compared to titanium, its osseointegration is inferior and shows improvement after surface modification. Strength of zirconia is good, but comparatively lesser than that of titanium. Zirconia is osseoconductive as reported in some studies and has also shown favourable interaction with the soft tissue. It has been found that zirconia reduces plaque formation on the implant surface, which leads to good healing and successful implant treatment.
Most of the studies on zirconia implants are short-term studies and evidence of success in long-term clinical trials is lacking. More research is needed on zirconia dental implants before we could use it for frequent treatment needs, as compared to titanium implants.
| References | | |
| 1. | Kuboki T, Okamoto S, Suzuki H, Kanyama M, Arakawa H, Sonoyama W, et al. Quality of life assessment of bone-anchored fixed partial denture patients with unilateral mandibular distal-extension edentulism. J Prosthet Dent 1999;82:182-7.  |
| 2. | Depprich R, Zipprich H, Ommerborn M, Naujoks C, Wiesmann HP, Kiattavorncharoen S, et al. Osseointegration of zirconia implants compared with titanium: An in vivo study. Head Face Med 2008;4:30. |
| 3. | Steinemann SG. Titanium-the material of choice? Periodontol 2000 1998;17:7-21. |
| 4. | Heydecke G, Kohal R, Gläser R. Optimal esthetics in single-tooth replacement with the Re-Implant system: A case report. Int J Prosthodont 1999;12:184-9. |
| 5. | Tschernitschek H, Borchers L, Geurtsen W. Nonalloyed titanium as a bioinert metal-A review. Quintessence Int 2005;36:523-30. |
| 6. | Sterner T, Schütze N, Saxler G, Jakob F, Rader CP. Effects of clinically relevant alumina ceramic, zirconia ceramic and titanium particles of different sizes and concentrations on TNF-alpha release in a human macrophage cell line. Biomed Tech (Berl) 2004;49:340-4. |
| 7. | Akagawa Y, Ichikawa Y, Nikai H, Tsuru H. Interface histology of unloaded and early loaded partially stabilized zirconia endosseous implant in initial bone healing. J Prosthet Dent 1993;69:599-604. |
| 8. | Scarano A, Di Carlo F, Quaranta M, Piattelli A. Bone response to zirconia ceramic implants: An experimental study in rabbits. J Oral Implantol 2003;29:8-12. |
| 9. | Kohal RJ, Weng D, Bächle M, Strub JR. Loaded custom-made zirconia and titanium implants show similar osseointegration: An animal experiment. J Periodontol 2004;75:1262-8. |
| 10. | Ahmad I. Yttrium-partially stabilized zirconium dioxide posts: An approach to restoring coronally compromised nonvital teeth. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1998;18:455-65. |
| 11. | Jackson MC. Restoration of posterior implants using a new ceramic material. J Dent Technol 1999;16:19-22. |
| 12. | Pekkan G, Pekkan K, Hatipoglu MG, Tuna SH. Comparative radiopacity of ceramics and metals with human and bovine dental tissues. J Prosthet Dent 2011;106:109-17. |
| 13. | Rimondini L, Cerroni L, Carrassi A, Torricelli P. Bacterial colonization of zirconia ceramic surfaces: An in vitro and in vivo study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:793-8. |
| 14. | Denry I, Kelly JR. State of the art of zirconia for dental applications. Dent Mater 2008;24:299-307. |
| 15. | Piconi C, Maccauro G. Zirconia as a ceramic biomaterial. Biomaterials 1999;20:1-25. |
| 16. | Chai J, Chu FC, Chow TW, Liang BM. Chemical solubility and flexural strength of Zirconia- based ceramics. Int J Proshodont 2007;20:587-95. |
| 17. | Yilmaz H, Aydin C, Gul BE. Flexural strength and fracture toughness of dental core ceramics. J Prosthet Dent 2007;98:120-8. |
| 18. | Qeblawi DM, Muñoz CA, Brewer JD, Monaco EA Jr. The effect of zirconia surface treatment on flexural strength and shear bond strength to a resin cement. J Prosthet Dent 2010;103:210-20. |
| 19. | Minamizato T. Slip-cast zirconia dental roots with tunnels drilled by laser process. J Prosthet Dent 1990;63:677-84. |
| 20. | Kohal RJ, Klaus G, Strub JR. Zirconia-implant supported all-ceramic crowns withstand long-term load: A pilot investigation. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;17:565-71. |
| 21. | Kohal RJ, Finke HC, Klaus G. Stability of prototype two-piece zirconia and titanium implants after artificial aging: An in vitro pilot study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2009;11:323-9. |
| 22. | Kohal RJ, Wolkewitz M, Tsakona A. The effects of cyclic loading and preparation on the fracture strength of zirconium-dioxide implants: An in vitro investigation. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22:808-14. |
| 23. | Silva NR, Coelho PG, Fernandes CA, Navarro JM, Dias RA, Thompson VP. Reliability of one-piece ceramic implant. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2009;88:419-26. |
| 24. | Chevalier J, Gremillard L, Virkar AV, Clarke DR. The tetragonal-monoclinic transformation in zirconia: Lessons learned and future trends. J Am Ceram Soc 2009;92:1901-20. |
| 25. | Suresh A, Mayo MJ, Porter WD, Rawn CJ. Crystallite and grain-size-dependent phase transformations in Yttria-Doped zirconia. J Am Ceram Soc 2003;86:360-2. |
| 26. | Garvie RC, Hannink RH, Pascoe RT. Ceramic steel? Nature 1975;258:703-4. |
| 27. | Sato T, Shimada M. Transformation of Yttria-Doped tetragonal ZrO2 polycrystals by annealing in water. J Am Ceram Soc 1985;68:356-9. |
| 28. | Swab JJ. Low temperature degradation of Y-TZP materials. J Mater Sci 1991;26:6706-14. |
| 29. | Chevalier J. What future for zirconia as a biomaterial? Biomaterials 2006;27:535-43. |
| 30. | Deville S, Chevalier J, Gremillard L. Influence of surface finish and residual stresses on the ageing sensitivity of biomedical grade zirconia. Biomaterials 2000;27:2186-92. |
| 31. | Watanabe M, Iio S, Fukuura I. Ageing behaviour of Y-TZP. In: Claussen N, Ruhle M, Heuer AH, editors. Science and Technology of Zirconia II (Advances in Ceramics) Vol. 12. Columbus, OH, USA: The American Ceramic Society; 1984. p. 391-8. |
| 32. | Att W, Grigoriadou M, Strub JR. ZrO2 three-unit fixed partial dentures: Comparison of failure load before and after exposure to a mastication simulator. J Oral Rehabil 2007;34:282-90. |
| 33. | Zechner W, Tangl S, Fürst G, Tepper G, Thams U, Mailath G, et al. Osseous healing characteristics of three different implant types. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003;14:150-7. |
| 34. | Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Oral implant surfaces: Part 2--Review focusing on clinical knowledge of different surfaces. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:544-64. |
| 35. | Sollazzo V, Pezzetti F, Scarano A, Piattelli A, Bignozzi CA, Massari L, et al. Zirconium oxide coating improves implant osseointegration in vivo. Dent Mater 2008;24:357-61. |
| 36. | Franchi M, Bacchelli B, Martini D, Pasquale VD, Orsini E, Ottani V, et al. Early detachment of titanium particles from various different surfaces of endosseous dental implants. Biomaterials 2004;25:2239-46. |
| 37. | Akagawa Y, Hosokawa R, Sato Y, Kamayama K. Comparison between freestanding and tooth-connected partially stabilized zirconia implants after two years' function in monkeys: A clinical and histologic study. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:551-8. |
| 38. | Stadlinger B, Hennig M, Eckelt U, Kuhlisch E, Mai R. Comparison of zirconia and titanium implants after a short healing period. A pilot study in minipigs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;39:585-92. |
| 39. | Dubruille JH, Viguier E, Le Naour G, Dubruille MT, Auriol M, Le Charpentier Y. Evaluation of combinations of titanium, zirconia, and alumina implants with 2 bone fillers in the dog. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:271-7. |
| 40. | Schultze-Mosgau S, Schliephake H, Radespiel-Tröger M, Neukam FW. Osseointegration of endodontic endosseous cones: Zirconium oxide vs titanium. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2000;89:91-8. |
| 41. | Kohal RJ, Papavasiliou G, Kamposiora P, Tripodakis A, Strub JR. Three-dimensional computerized stress analysis of commercially pure titanium and yttrium-partially stabilized zirconia implants. Int J Prosthodont 2002;15:189-94. |
| 42. | Hoffmann O, Angelov N, Gallez F, Jung RE, Weber FE. The zirconia implant-bone interface: A preliminary histologic evaluation in rabbits. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:691-5. |
| 43. | Depprich R, Zipprich H, Ommerborn M, Mahn E, Lammers L, Handschel J, et al. Osseointegration of zirconia implants: An SEM observation of the bone-implant interface. Head Face Med 2008;4:25. |
| 44. | Gahlert M, Röhling S, Wieland M, Sprecher CM, Kniha H, Milz S. Osseointegration of zirconia and titanium dental implants: A histological andhistomorphometrical study in the maxilla of pigs. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20:1247-53. |
| 45. | Gahlert M, Roehling S, Sprecher CM, Kniha H, Milz S, Bormann K. In vivo performance of zirconia and titanium implants: A histomorphometric study in mini pig maxillae. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23:281-6. |
| 46. | Langhoff JD, Voelter K, Scharnweber D, Schnabelrauch M, Schlottig F, Hefti T, et al. Comparison of chemically and pharmaceutically modified titanium and zirconia implant surfaces in dentistry: A study in sheep. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;37:1125-32. |
| 47. | Özkurt Z, Kazazoðlu E. Zirconia dental implants: A literature review. J Oral Implantol 2011;37:367-76. |
| 48. | Bächle M, Butz F, Hübner U, Bakalinis E, Kohal RJ. Behavior of CAL72 osteoblast-like cells cultured on zirconia ceramics with different surface topographies. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18:53-9. |
| 49. | Gahlert M, Gudehus T, Eichhorn S, Steinhauser E, Kniha H, Erhardt W. Biomechanical and histomorphometric comparison between zirconia implants with varying surface textures and a titanium implant in the maxilla of miniature pigs. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18:662-8. |
| 50. | Hoffmann O, Angelov N, Zafiropoulos GG, Andreana S. Osseointegration of zirconia implants with different surface characteristics: An evaluation in rabbits. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:352-8. |
| 51. | Stübinger S, Homann F, Etter C, Miskiewicz M, Wieland M, Sader R. Effect of Er: YAG, CO (2) and diode laser irradiation on surface properties of zirconia endosseous dental implants. Lasers Surg Med 2008;40:223-8. |
| 52. | Klokkevold PR, Nishimura RD, Adachi M, Caputo A. Osseointegration enhanced by chemical etching of the titanium surface. A torque removal study in the rabbit. Clin Oral Implants Res 1997;8:442-7. |
| 53. | Sennerby L, Dasmah A, Larsson B, Iverhed M. Bone tissue responses to surface-modified zirconia implants: A histomorphometric and removal torque study in the rabbit. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2005;7(Suppl 1):S13-20. |
| 54. | Alzubaydi TL, Alameer SS, Ismaeel T, Alhijazi AY, Geetha M. In vivo studies of the ceramic coated titanium alloy for enhanced osseointegration in dental applications. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2009;20(Suppl 1):S35-42. |
| 55. | Ferguson SJ, Langhoff JD, Voelter K, von Rechenberg B, Scharnweber D, Bierbaum S, et al. Biomechanical comparison of different surface modifications for dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:1037-46. |
| 56. | Josset Y, Oum'Hamed Z, Zarrinpour A, Lorenzato M, Adnet JJ, Laurent-Maquin D. In vitro reactions of human osteoblasts in culture with zirconia and alumina ceramics. J Biomed Mater Res 1999;47:481-93. |
| 57. | Torricelli P, Verné E, Brovarone CV, Appendino P, Rustichelli F, Krajewski A, et al. Biological glass coating on ceramic materials: In vitro evaluation using primary osteoblast cultures from healthy and osteopenic rat bone. Biomaterials 2001;22:2535-43. |
| 58. | Lohmann CH, Dean DD, Köster G, Casasola D, Buchhorn GH, Fink U, et al. Ceramic and PMMA particles differentially affect osteoblast phenotype. Biomaterials 2002;23:1855-63. |
| 59. | Bächle M, Butz F, Hübner U, Bakalinis E, Kohal RJ. Behavior of CAL72 osteoblast-like cells cultured on zirconia ceramics with different surface topographies. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18:53-9. |
| 60. | Liagre B, Moalic S, Vergne P, Charissoux JL, Bernache- Assollant D, Beneytout JL. Effects of alumina and zirconium dioxide particles on arachidonic acid metabolism and proinflammatory interleukin production in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid synovial cells. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2002;84:920-30. |
| 61. | Ito A, Tateishi T, Niwa S, Tange S. In vitro evaluation of the cytocompatibility of wear particles generated by UHMWPE/zirconia friction. Clin Mater 1993;12:203-9. |
| 62. | Hisbergues M, Vendeville S, Vendeville P. Zirconia: Established facts and perspectives for a biomaterial in dental implantology. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2009;88:519-29. |
| 63. | Christel P, Meunier A, Heller M, Torre JP, Peille CN. Mechanical properties and short-term in-vivo evaluation of yttrium-oxide-partially-stabilized zirconia. J Biomed Mater Res 1989;23:45-61. |
| 64. | Ichikawa Y, Akagawa Y, Nikai H, Tsuru H. Tissue compatibility and stability of a new zirconia ceramic in vivo. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68:322-6. |
| 65. | Styles JA, Wilson J. Comparison between in vitro toxicity of two novel fibrous mineral dusts and their tissue reaction in vivo. Ann Occup Hyg 1976;19:63-8. |
| 66. | Helmer JC, Driskell TD. Research on Bioceramics: Symposium on Use of Ceramics as Surgical Implants. South Carolina: Clemson University; 1969. |
| 67. | Wagner W, Rixecker H, Wahlmann UW. Morphometric comparison of histologic bone reactions after implantation of mono- and polycrystalline aluminium oxide pins. In: Christel P, Meunier A, Lee AJ, editors. Biological and Biomechanical Performance of Biomaterials. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1986. p. 129-34. |
| 68. | Christel PS. Zirconia: The second generation of ceramics for total hip replacement. Bull Hosp Jt Dis Orthop Inst 1989;49:170-7. |
| 69. | Kohal RJ, Bächle M, Att W, Chaar S, Altmann B, Renz A, et al. Osteoblast and bone tissue response to surface modified zirconia and titanium implant materials. Dent Mater 2013;29:763-76. |
| 70. | Gredes T, Kubasiewicz-Ross P, Gedrange T, Dominiak M, Kunert-Keil C. Comparison of surface modified zirconia implants with commercially available zirconium and titanium implants: A histological study in pigs. Implant Dent 2014;23:502-7. |
| 71. | Tetè S, Mastrangelo F, Bianchi A, Zizzari V, Scarano A. Collagen fiber orientation around machined titanium and zirconia dental implant necks: An animal study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24:52-8. |
| 72. | van Brakel R, Cune MS, van Winkelhoff AJ, de Putter C, Verhoeven JW, van der Reijden W. Early bacterial colonization and soft tissue health around zirconia and titanium abutments: An in vivo study in man. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22:571-7. |
| 73. | Welander M, Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T. The mucosal barrier at implant abutments of different materials. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19:635-41. |
| 74. | Zembic A, Sailer I, Jung RE, Hämmerle CH. Randomized-controlled clinical trial of customized zirconia and titanium implant abutments for single-tooth implants in canine and posterior regions: 3-year results. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20:802-8. |
| 75. | van Brakel R, Meijer GJ, Verhoeven JW, Jansen J, de Putter C, Cune MS. Soft tissue response to zirconia and titanium implant abutments: An in vivo within-subject comparison. J Clin Periodontol 2012;39:995-1001. |
| 76. | Ong ES, Newman HN, Wilson M, Bulman JS. The occurrence of periodontitis-related microorganisms in relation to titanium implants. J Periodontol 1992;63:200-5. |
| 77. | Scarano A, Piattelli M, Caputi S, Favero GA, Piattelli A. Bacterial adhesion on commercially pure titanium and zirconium oxide disks: An in vivo human study. J Periodontol 2004;75:292-6. |
| 78. | Egawa M, Miura T, Kato T, Saito A, Yoshinari M. In vitro adherence of periodontopathic bacteria to zirconia and titanium surfaces. Dent Mater J 2013;32:101-6. |
| 79. | Re D, Pellegrini G, Francinetti P, Augusti D, Rasperini G. In vivo early plaque formation on zirconia and feldspathic ceramic. Minerva Stomatol 2011;60:339-48. |
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4] |
|
| This article has been cited by | | 1 |
Intranuclear cell uptake and toxicity of titanium dioxide and zirconia particles as well as bacterial adhesion on dental titanium- and zirconia-implants |
|
| Julia Dhein, Cornelia Haller, Franz-Xaver Reichl, Stefan Milz, Reinhard Hickel, Maximilian Kollmuss, Christof Högg | | Dental Materials. 2022; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 2 |
Structural Characterization and Osseointegrative Properties of Pulsed Laser-Deposited Fluorinated Hydroxyapatite Films on Nano-Zirconia for Implant Applications |
|
| Min Li, Satoshi Komasa, Shigeki Hontsu, Yoshiya Hashimoto, Joji Okazaki | | International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2022; 23(5): 2416 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 3 |
Fracture Resistance of Zirconia Abutments with or without a Titanium Base: An In Vitro Study for Tapered Conical Connection Implants |
|
| Shota Watanabe, Tamaki Nakano, Shinji Ono, Yasufumi Yamanishi, Takashi Matsuoka, Shoichi Ishigaki | | Materials. 2022; 15(1): 364 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 4 |
[email protected] [email protected] Nanoparticles for Nucleic Acid Building Block Sorption |
|
| Livia Naszályi Nagy,Evert Dhaene,Matthias Van Zele,Judith Mihály,Szilvia Klébert,Zoltán Varga,Katalin E. Kövér,Klaartje De Buysser,Isabel Van Driessche,José C. Martins,Krisztina Fehér | | Nanomaterials. 2021; 11(9): 2166 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 5 |
The Impact of Dental Implant Surface Modifications on Osseointegration and Biofilm Formation |
|
| Stefanie Kligman,Zhi Ren,Chun-Hsi Chung,Michael Angelo Perillo,Yu-Cheng Chang,Hyun Koo,Zhong Zheng,Chenshuang Li | | Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2021; 10(8): 1641 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 6 |
Laser Surface Texturing for Biomedical Applications: A Review |
|
| Ishwer Shivakoti,Golam Kibria,Robert Cep,Bal Bahadur Pradhan,Ashis Sharma | | Coatings. 2021; 11(2): 124 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 7 |
Full Zirconia Implant-Born Prosthetic Rehabilitation with CAD/CAM Technology after Accurate Digital Planning. A Case Report |
|
| Riccardo Scaringi,Michele Nannelli,Alessio Franchina,Giuseppe Lizio,Luigi V. Stefanelli,Michele Pagliarulo,Francesca De Angelis,Gerardo Pellegrino | | International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(15): 7998 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 8 |
Influence of TiO2 and ZrO2 Nanoparticles on Adhesive Bond Strength and Viscosity of Dentin Polymer: A Physical and Chemical Evaluation |
|
| Samar Al-Saleh, Abdullah Alateeq, Abdulaziz H. Alshaya, Amal S. Al-Qahtani, Huda I. Tulbah, Mashael Binhasan, Sara Shabib, Imran Farooq, Fahim Vohra, Tariq Abduljabbar | | Polymers. 2021; 13(21): 3794 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 9 |
The effects of physical decontamination methods on zirconia implant surfaces: a systematic review |
|
| Nathan Chiang Ping Tan,Ahsen Khan,Elsa Antunes,Catherine M Miller,Dileep Sharma | | Journal of Periodontal & Implant Science. 2021; 51 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 10 |
Core-shell structured [email protected]@SiO2 filler for radiopacity and ultra-low shrinkage dental composite resins |
|
| Chuanyue Sun,Dongyu Xu,Chengyi Hou,Hui Zhang,Yaogang Li,Qinghong Zhang,Hongzhi Wang,Meifang Zhu | | Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials. 2021; 121: 104593 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 11 |
Impact of physical decontamination methods on zirconia implant surface and subsequent bacterial adhesion: An in-vitro study |
|
| Nathan Chiang Ping Tan,Catherine M. Miller,Elsa Antunes,Dileep Sharma | | Clinical and Experimental Dental Research. 2021; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 12 |
Atomic layer deposition on dental materials: Processing conditions and surface functionalization to improve physical, chemical, and clinical properties - A review |
|
| Sarah Hashemi Astaneh,Leonardo P. Faverani,Cortino Sukotjo,Christos G. Takoudis | | Acta Biomaterialia. 2021; 121: 103 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 13 |
In vitro and in vivo antibacterial performance of Zr & O PIII magnesium alloys with high concentration of oxygen vacancies |
|
| Tao Liang,Lilan Zeng,Yunzhu Shi,Haobo Pan,Paul K. Chu,Kelvin W.K. Yeung,Ying Zhao | | Bioactive Materials. 2021; 6(10): 3049 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 14 |
Surface engineering of biodegradable implants: emerging trends in bioactive ceramic coatings and mechanical treatments |
|
| Sagar Nilawar, Mohammad Uddin, Kaushik Chatterjee | | Materials Advances. 2021; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 15 |
Will Zirconia Implants Replace Titanium Implants? |
|
| Liana Preto Webber,Hsun-Liang Chan,Hom-Lay Wang | | Applied Sciences. 2021; 11(15): 6776 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 16 |
Customized Therapeutic Surface Coatings for Dental Implants |
|
| Muhammad Sohail Zafar,Muhammad Amber Fareed,Samiya Riaz,Muhammad Latif,Syed Rashid Habib,Zohaib Khurshid | | Coatings. 2020; 10(6): 568 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 17 |
Powder mixed-EDM for potential biomedical applications: A critical review |
|
| Md Al-Amin,Ahmad Majdi Abdul Rani,Abdul Azeez Abdu Aliyu,Muhammad Al’Hapis Abdul Razak,Sri Hastuty,Michael G Bryant | | Materials and Manufacturing Processes. 2020; 35(16): 1789 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 18 |
Prolonged UV-C Irradiation is a Double-Edged Sword on the Zirconia Surface |
|
| Aifang Han,Hao Ding,James Kit Hon Tsoi,Satoshi Imazato,Jukka P. Matinlinna,Zhuofan Chen | | ACS Omega. 2020; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 19 |
Zirconia (1 1 0) surface adsorption behavior – A density functional theory study |
|
| Seifollah Jalili,Mohammad Keshavarz | | Computational and Theoretical Chemistry. 2020; 1173: 112702 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 20 |
Titanium and zirconium release from titanium- and zirconia implants in mini pig maxillae and their toxicity in vitro |
|
| Xiuli He,Franz-Xaver Reichl,Stefan Milz,Bernhard Michalke,Xiao Wu,Christoph M. Sprecher,Yang Yang,Michael Gahlert,Stefan Röhling,Heinz Kniha,Reinhard Hickel,Christof Högg | | Dental Materials. 2020; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 21 |
Piezoelectric Direct Discharge: Devices and Applications |
|
| Dariusz Korzec,Florian Hoppenthaler,Stefan Nettesheim | | Plasma. 2020; 4(1): 1 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 22 |
The Advances of Ceria Nanoparticles for Biomedical Applications in Orthopaedics |
|
| Hongru Li,Peng Xia,Su Pan,Zhiping Qi,Chuan Fu,Ziyuan Yu,Weijian Kong,Yuxin Chang,Kai Wang,Dankai Wu,Xiaoyu Yang | | International Journal of Nanomedicine. 2020; Volume 15: 7199 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 23 |
Retentive Force of Glass-Ceramic Soldered Customized Zirconia Abutment Copings with Prefabricated Titanium Bases |
|
| Jeremias Hey,Monika Kasaliyska,Andreas Kiesow,Ramona Schweyen,Christin Arnold | | Materials. 2020; 13(14): 3193 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 24 |
Surrounding Tissue Response to Surface-Treated Zirconia Implants |
|
| Yohei Iinuma,Masatsugu Hirota,Tohru Hayakawa,Chikahiro Ohkubo | | Materials. 2019; 13(1): 30 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 25 |
Cortical bone response toward nanosecond-pulsed laser-treated zirconia implant surfaces |
|
| Masatsugu HIROTA,Tomohiro HARAI,Shinji ISHIBASHI,Masayoshi MIZUTANI,Tohru HAYAKAWA | | Dental Materials Journal. 2019; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 26 |
Comparison of fracture toughness measurements for zirconia materials using two test methods |
|
| Jan Ulrich JANSEN,Nina LÜMKEMANN,Beatrice SENER,Bogna STAWARCZYK | | Dental Materials Journal. 2019; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 27 |
Zirconia versus titanium in dentistry: A review |
|
| Takao HANAWA | | Dental Materials Journal. 2019; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 28 |
Improvement of mechanical properties of Y-TZP by thermal annealing with monoclinic zirconia nanoparticle coating |
|
| Masahiro Okada,Hiroaki Taketa,Emilio Satoshi Hara,Yasuhiro Torii,Masao Irie,Takuya Matsumoto | | Dental Materials. 2019; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 29 |
Evaluation of the biological behaviour of various dental implant abutment materials on attachment and viability of human gingival fibroblasts |
|
| Panagiotis Pandoleon,Athina Bakopoulou,Lambrini Papadopoulou,Petros Koidis | | Dental Materials. 2019; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 30 |
New zirconia-based materials for dental applications. Structural, morphological and histological evaluation |
|
| Madalina Matei,Elena-Adriana Voinea,Radu Rîca,Horia Manolea,Lauren?iu Mogoanta,Alex Salan,Ana Rîca,Venera Cristina Dinescu,Nicoleta Cioatera | | Ceramics International. 2019; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 31 |
Clinical performance of zirconia implants: A meta-review |
|
| Kelvin Ian Afrashtehfar,Massimo Del Fabbro | | The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2019; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 32 |
Effect of reduced airborne particle abrasion pressure on the retention of zirconia copings resin bonded to titanium abutments |
|
| Nadine Anika Hansen,Sebastian Wille,Matthias Kern | | The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2019; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 33 |
Influence of contact configuration and lubricating conditions on the microtriboactivity of the zirconia-Ti6Al4V pair used in dental applications |
|
| A.C. Branco,V. Moreira,J.A. Reis,R. Colaço,C.G. Figueiredo-Pina,A.P. Serro | | Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials. 2019; 91: 164 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 34 |
Biological characterization of surface-treated dental implant materials in contact with mammalian host and bacterial cells: titanium versus zirconia |
|
| Danyal A. Siddiqui,Joel J. Jacob,Alikhan B. Fidai,Danieli C. Rodrigues | | RSC Advances. 2019; 9(55): 32097 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 35 |
Indentation size effect in aqueous electrophoretic deposition zirconia dental ceramic |
|
| Lei Wang,Isaac Asempah,Xu Li,Sheng-Qi Zang,Yan-Fei Zhou,Jie Ding,Lei Jin | | Journal of Materials Research. 2019; : 1 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 36 |
Zirconia compared to titanium dental implants in preclinical studies—A systematic review and meta-analysis |
|
| Stefan Roehling,Karl A. Schlegel,Henriette Woelfler,Michael Gahlert | | Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2019; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 37 |
Performance and outcome of zirconia dental implants in clinical studies: A meta-analysis |
|
| Stefan Roehling,Karl A. Schlegel,Henriette Woelfler,Michael Gahlert | | Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2018; 29: 135 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 38 |
The effects of laser patterning 10CeTZP-Al 2 O 3 nanocomposite disc surfaces: Osseous differentiation and cellular arrangement in vitro |
|
| Lidia Goyos-Ball,Catuxa Prado,Raquel Díaz,Elisa Fernández,Arnold Ismailov,Tero Kumpulainen,Erkki Levänen,Ramón Torrecillas,Adolfo Fernández | | Ceramics International. 2018; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 39 |
Optimal sandblasting conditions for conventional-type yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystals |
|
| Masahiro Okada,Hiroaki Taketa,Yasuhiro Torii,Masao Irie,Takuya Matsumoto | | Dental Materials. 2018; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 40 |
Maximum undeformed equivalent chip thickness for ductile-brittle transition of zirconia ceramics under different lubrication conditions |
|
| Min Yang,Changhe Li,Yanbin Zhang,Dongzhou Jia,Xianpeng Zhang,Yali Hou,Runze Li,Jun Wang | | International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture. 2017; 122: 55 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 41 |
Effects of different sterilization methods on surface characteristics and biofilm formation on zirconia in vitro |
|
| Aifang Han,James K.H. Tsoi,Jukka P. Matinlinna,Yu Zhang,Zhuofan Chen | | Dental Materials. 2017; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 42 |
Osseointegration of zirconia and titanium implants in a rabbit tibiae model evaluated by microtomography, histomorphometry and fluorochrome labeling analyses |
|
| R. Martins,T. M. Cestari,R. V. N. Arantes,P. S. Santos,R. Taga,M. J. Carbonari,R. C. Oliveira | | Journal of Periodontal Research. 2017; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 43 |
Protein Adsorption to Titanium and Zirconia Using a Quartz Crystal Microbalance Method |
|
| You Kusakawa,Eiji Yoshida,Tohru Hayakawa | | BioMed Research International. 2017; 2017: 1 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 44 |
Quantitative Analysis of Apatite Formation on Titanium and Zirconia in a Simulated Body Fluid Solution Using the Quartz Crystal Microbalance Method |
|
| Eiji Yoshida,Tohru Hayakawa | | Advances in Materials Science and Engineering. 2017; 2017: 1 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 45 |
Resin adhesion strengths to zirconia ceramics after primer treatment with silane coupling monomer or oligomer |
|
| Masahiro OKADA,Kazusa INOUE,Masao IRIE,Hiroaki TAKETA,Yasuhiro TORII,Takuya MATSUMOTO | | Dental Materials Journal. 2017; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 46 |
Comparative Analysis of Screw Loosening With Prefabricated Abutments and Customized CAD/CAM Abutments |
|
| Janghyun Paek,Yi-Hyung Woo,Hyeong-Seob Kim,Ahran Pae,Kwantae Noh,Hyeonjong Lee,Kung-Rock Kwon | | Implant Dentistry. 2016; 25(6): 770 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 47 |
Fabrication of a cubic zirconia nanocoating on a titanium dental implant with excellent adhesion, hardness and biocompatibility |
|
| Indranee Das,Shreyasi Chattopadhyay,Arnab Mahato,Biswanath Kundu,Goutam De | | RSC Adv.. 2016; 6(64): 59030 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 48 |
In vitro performance of two-piece zirconia implant systems for anterior application |
|
| Verena Preis,Armin Kammermeier,Gerhard Handel,Martin Rosentritt | | Dental Materials. 2016; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 49 |
In vitro performance of one- and two-piece zirconia implant systems for anterior application |
|
| Armin Kammermeier,Martin Rosentritt,Michael Behr,Sibylle Schneider-Feyrer,Verena Preis | | Journal of Dentistry. 2016; 53: 94 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 50 |
Tasa de supervivencia de los implantes dentales de óxido de circonio. Una revisión sistemática y metaanálisis |
|
| Heber Isac Arbildo-Vega,César Augusto Lamas-Lara,Hernán Vásquez-Rodrigo | | Revista Española de Cirugía Oral y Maxilofacial. 2016; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Users Online: 50
