Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

Adv Clin Exp Med
Impact Factor (IF) – 1.514
Index Copernicus (ICV 2018) – 157.72
MNiSW – 40
Average rejection rate – 84.38%
ISSN 1899–5276 (print)
ISSN 2451-2680 (online)
Periodicity – monthly

Download PDF

Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

2018, vol. 27, nr 9, September, p. 1173–1179

doi: 10.17219/acem/69246

Publication type: original article

Language: English

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 Open Access

Osseointegration of zirconia implants with 3 varying surface textures and a titanium implant: A histological and micro-CT study

Paweł Kubasiewicz-Ross1,A,B,C,D, Jakub Hadzik1,C,D, Marzena Dominiak1,D,E,F

1 Department of Oral Surgery, Wroclaw Medical University, Poland


Background. Zirconium – a bioinert metal – in comparison with titanium implants, offers a variety of potential advantages for use in the esthetic area of dentistry due to its tooth-like color. Zirconium dental implants are considered to be an alternative method of treatment to conventional titanium dental implants for patients with a thin gingival biotype.
Objectives. This study was designed to study the bone tissue response to new zirconia implants with modified surfaces in comparison with commercially available titanium dental implants and commercially available zirconia implants.
Material and Methods. The study was carried out on a group of 12 16-month-old minipigs. New zirconia implants with 3 different surfaces were used: M1 – blasted surface, M2 – etched surface and M3 – blasted and etched surface (Maxon Motor GmbH, Sexau, Germany) and compared to conventional titanium implants with an sandblasted and acid etched (SLA) surface (Straumann GmbH, Freiburg, Germany) and commercially available zirconia implants (Ziterion GmbH, Uffenheim, Germany). Histological and micro-computed tomopgraphy (micro-CT) evaluation was performed.
Results. In the micro-CT assessment, the average bone-implant contact (BIC) of the zirconia experimental implants was 41.44%. In particular, the BIC% for M1 was 39.72%, for M2 it was 43.97%, and for M3 – 40.63%; in the control group it was 49.63% and 27.77% for ceramic and titanium control implants, respectively. The intra-group analysis showed no statistically important differences between the BIC values for implants in any group. However, the analysis of BIC for different regions of the same implant showed statistically significant differences in all of the groups between the results of the threaded region and the neck and the apex.
Conclusion. The results of our study suggest that zirconia implants with modified surfaces display features of osseointegration similar to those of titanium implants. These results are promising in using zirconia implants for dental applications in the future.

Key words

dental implants, osseointegration, micro-computed tomography, histomorphometry, zirconia implant

References (30)

  1. Vishnu S, Kusum D. Advances in surface modification of dental implants from micron to nanotopography. Int J Res Dent. 2011;1:1–10.
  2. Schwarz F, Mihatovic I, Shirakata Y, Becker J, Bosshardt D, Sculean A. Treatment of soft tissue recessions at titanium implants using a resorbable collagen matrix: A pilot study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014;25(1):110–115.
  3. Evrard L, Waroquier D, Parent D. Allergies to dental metals. Titanium: A new allergen. Rev Med Brux. 2010;31(1):44–49.
  4. De Wijs FL, Van Dongen RC, De Lange GL, De Putter C. Front tooth replacement with Tubingen (Frialit) implants. J Oral Rehabil. 1994;21: 11–26.
  5. Schulte W, d’Hoedt B. 13 Jahre Tubinger Implantat aus Frialit-Weitere Ergebnisse. Zeitschrift Zahnarzt Implant. 1988;3:167–172.
  6. Hisbergues M, Vendeville S, Vendeville P. Zirconia: Established facts and perspectives for a biomaterial in dental implantology. J Biomed Mater Res. 2009;88(2):519–529.
  7. 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(5):662–668.
  8. Allegrini S Jr, Allegrini MR, Yoshimoto M, et al. Soft tissue integration in the neck area of titanium implants: An animal trial. J Physiol Pharmacol. 2008;59(Suppl 5):117–132.
  9. Gedrange T, Mai R, Mack F, et al. Evaluation of shape and size changes of bone and remodelled bone substitute after different fixation methods. J Physiol Pharmacol. 2008;59(Suppl 5):87–94.
  10. Mai R, Lux R, Proff P, et al. O-phospho-L-serine: A modulator of bone healing in calcium-phosphate cements. Biomed Tech. 2008;53(5):
  11. Kunert-Keil Ch, Gedrange T, Mai R, et al. Morphological evaluation of bone defect regeneration after treatment with two different forms of bone substitution materials on the basis of BONITmatrix. J Physiol Pharmacol. 2009;60(Suppl 8):57–60.
  12. Donath K, Breuner G. A method for the study of undecalcified bones and teeth with attached soft tissues. The Säge-Schliff (sawing and grinding) technique. J Oral Pathology. 1982;11(4):318–326.
  13. Sennerby L, Meredith N. Implant stability measurements using resonance frequency analysis: Biological and biomechanical aspects and clinical implications. Periodontology 2000. 2008;47:51–65.
  14. Coelho PG, Granjeiro JM, Romanos GE, et al. Basic research methods and current trends of dental implant surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2009;88:579–596.
  15. Barrett JF, Keat N. Artifacts in CT: Recognition and avoidance. Radiographics. 2004;24:1679–1691.
  16. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T, Lausmaa J. Torque and histomorphometric evaluation of c.p. titanium screws blasted with 25- and 75- microns-sized-particles of Al2O3. J Biomed Mater Res. 1996;30:251–260.
  17. Larsson C, Thomsen P, Aronsson BO, et al. Bone response to surface-modified titanium implants: Studies on the early tissue response to machined and electropolished implants with different oxide thicknesses. Biomaterials. 1996;17:605–616.
  18. Buser D, Broggini N, Wieland M, et al. Enhanced bone apposition to a chemically modified SLA titanium surface. J Dent Res. 2004;83: 529–533.
  19. Schwarz F, Herten M, Sager M, Wieland M, Dard M, Becker J. Histological and immunohistochemical analysis of initial and early osseous integration at chemically modified and conventional SLAs titanium implants: Preliminary results of a pilot study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007;18:481–488.
  20. Gahlert M, Röhling S, Wieland M, Sprecher CM, Kniha H, Milz S. Osseointegration of zirconia and titanium implants: A histological and histomorphometrical study in the maxilla of pigs. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20(11):1247–1253.
  21. Bornstein MM, Valderrama P, Jones AA, Wilson TG, Seibl R, Cochran DL. Bone apposition around two different sandblasted and acid-etched titanium implant surfaces: A histomorphometric study in canine mandibles. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008;19(3):233–241.
  22. Hayashi K, Matsuguchi N, Uenoyama K, Sugioka Y. Re-evaluation of the biocompatibility of bioinert ceramics in vivo. Biomaterials. 1992;13:195–200.
  23. Chang YS, Oka M, Nakamura T, Gu HO. Bone remodeling around implanted ceramics. J Biomed Mater Res. 1996;30:117–124.
  24. 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;14:271–277.
  25. Stanic V, Aldini NN, Fini M, et al. Osteointegration of bioactive glass-coated zirconia in healthy bone: An in vivo evaluation. Biomaterials. 2002;23:3833–3841.
  26. Scarano A, Di Carlo F, Quaranta M, Piattelli A. Bone response to zirconia ceramic implants: An experimental study in rabbits. J Oral Implantol.
  27. Aldini NN, Fini M, Giavaresi G, et al. Osteointegration of bioactive glass-coated and uncoated zirconia in osteopenic bone: An in vivo experimental study. J Biomed Mater Res. 2004;68:264–272.
  28. Depprich R, Zipprich H, Ommerborn M, et al. Osseointegration of zirconia implants: An SEM observation of the bone-implant interface. Head Face Med. 2008;4:25.
  29. 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(6):599–604.
  30. 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;23:281–286.