Home  About us  Contact
 

Zirconia Implants (zirconia + implant)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Medical Sciences100%

Selected Abstracts

Bone Tissue Responses to Surface-Modified Zirconia Implants: A Histomorphometric and Removal Torque Study in the Rabbit

CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, Issue 2005
Lars Sennerby DDS
ABSTRACT Background: Zirconia ceramics are biocompatible and have mechanical properties that make them suitable as materials for dental implants. Little is known about how surface modification influences the stability and bone tissue response to zirconia implants. Purpose: The objective of the investigation was to histologically and biomechanically evaluate the bone tissue response to zirconia implants with two different surface modifications in comparison with machined, nonmodified zirconia implants and oxidized titanium implants. Materials and Methods: Threaded zirconia implants with a diameter of 3.75 mm with either a machined surface (Zr-Ctr) or one of two surface modifications (Zr-A and Zr-B) were manufactured. Oxidized titanium (Ti-Ox) implants 3.75 mm in diameter were also used. The implants were characterized with regard to surface topography using an interferometer. Twelve rabbits received 96 implants using a rotational scheme, two in each tibia and two in each femur. The implants in six rabbits were subjected to removal torque (RTQ) tests after a healing period of 6 weeks. The implants in the remaining six animals were removed en bloc for light microscopic analysis. Back-scatter scanning electron microscopic (BS-SEM) analyses were used to evaluate the state of the bone-implant interface at the modified zirconia implants after RTQ testing. Results: The Ti-Ox and Zr-A implants showed the highest surface roughness, followed by the Zr-B implants and, finally, the Zr-Ctr implants. The nonmodified ZrO2 implants showed statistically significant lower RTQs than all other implants. No significant differences in bone-implant contact or bone area filling the threads were observed. BS-SEM showed intact surface layers of the surface-modified implants after RTQ testing and revealed fracture of the interface bone rather than a separation. Conclusion: The present study showed a strong bone tissue response to surface-modified zirconia implants after 6 weeks of healing in rabbit bone. The modified zirconia implants showed a resistance to torque forces similar to that of oxidized implants and a four- to fivefold increase compared with machined zirconia implants. The findings suggest that surface-modified zirconia implants can reach firm stability in bone. [source]

Biomechanical and histological behavior of zirconia implants: an experiment in the rat

CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, Issue 4 2009
Ralf J. Kohal
Abstract Objective: This study aimed at evaluating the integration of zirconia implants in a rat femur model. Material and methods: Zirconia implants with two distinct surface topographies were compared with titanium implants with similar topographies. Titanium and zirconia implants were placed into the femurs of 42 male Sprague,Dawley rats. Four groups of implants were utilized: machined zirconia implants, zirconia implants with a rough surface, machined titanium implants, and titanium implants with an electrochemically roughened surface. After a healing period of 28 days, the load-bearing capacity between the bone and the implant surface was evaluated by a push-in test. Additionally, after a healing period of 14 and 28 days, respectively, bone tissue specimens containing the implants were processed and histologically analyzed. Results: The mean mineralized bone-to-implant contact showed the highest values after 14 and 28 days for the rough surfaces (titanium: 36%/45%; zirconia: 45%/59%). Also, the push-in test showed higher values for the textured implant surfaces, with no statistical significance between titanium (34 N) and zirconia (45.8 N). Conclusions: Within the limits of the animal investigation presented, it was concluded that all tested zirconia and titanium implant surfaces were biocompatible and osseoconductive. The presented surface modification of zirconia implants showed no difference regarding the histological and biomechanical results compared with an established electrochemically modified titanium implant surface. [source]

Evaluation of nano-technology-modified zirconia oral implants: a study in rabbits

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY, Issue 7 2009
Jaebum Lee
Abstract Objective: The objective of this study was to screen candidate nano-technology-modified, micro-structured zirconia implant surfaces relative to local bone formation and osseointegration. Materials and Methods: Proprietary nano-technology surface-modified (calcium phosphate: CaP) micro-structured zirconia implants (A and C), control micro-structured zirconia implants (ZiUniteÔ), and titanium porous oxide implants (TiUniteÔ) were implanted into the femoral condyle in 40 adult male New Zealand White rabbits. Each animal received one implant in each hind leg; thus, 20 animals received A and C implants and 20 animals received ZiUniteÔ and TiUniteÔ implants in contralateral hind legs. Ten animals/group were euthanized at weeks 3 and 6 when biopsies of the implant sites were processed for histometric analysis using digital photomicrographs produced using backscatter scanning electron microscopy. Results: The TiUniteÔ surface demonstrated significantly greater bone,implant contact (BIC) (77.6±2.6%) compared with the A (64.6±3.6%) and C (62.2±3.1%) surfaces at 3 weeks (p<0.05). Numerical differences between ZiUniteÔ (70.5±3.1%) and A and C surfaces did not reach statistical significance (p>0.05). Similarly, there were non-significant differences between the TiUniteÔ and the ZiUniteÔ surfaces (p>0.05). At 6 weeks, there were no significant differences in BIC between the TiUniteÔ (67.1±4.2%), ZiUniteÔ (69.7±5.7%), A (68.6±1.9%), and C (64.5±4.1%) surfaces (p>0.05). Conclusion: TiUniteÔ and ZiUniteÔ implant surfaces exhibit high levels of osseointegration that, in this model, confirm their advanced osteoconductive properties. Addition of CaP nano-technology to the ZiUniteÔ surface does not enhance the already advanced osteoconductivity displayed by the TiUniteÔ and ZiUniteÔ implant surfaces. [source]

Bone Tissue Responses to Surface-Modified Zirconia Implants: A Histomorphometric and Removal Torque Study in the Rabbit

CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, Issue 2005
Lars Sennerby DDS
ABSTRACT Background: Zirconia ceramics are biocompatible and have mechanical properties that make them suitable as materials for dental implants. Little is known about how surface modification influences the stability and bone tissue response to zirconia implants. Purpose: The objective of the investigation was to histologically and biomechanically evaluate the bone tissue response to zirconia implants with two different surface modifications in comparison with machined, nonmodified zirconia implants and oxidized titanium implants. Materials and Methods: Threaded zirconia implants with a diameter of 3.75 mm with either a machined surface (Zr-Ctr) or one of two surface modifications (Zr-A and Zr-B) were manufactured. Oxidized titanium (Ti-Ox) implants 3.75 mm in diameter were also used. The implants were characterized with regard to surface topography using an interferometer. Twelve rabbits received 96 implants using a rotational scheme, two in each tibia and two in each femur. The implants in six rabbits were subjected to removal torque (RTQ) tests after a healing period of 6 weeks. The implants in the remaining six animals were removed en bloc for light microscopic analysis. Back-scatter scanning electron microscopic (BS-SEM) analyses were used to evaluate the state of the bone-implant interface at the modified zirconia implants after RTQ testing. Results: The Ti-Ox and Zr-A implants showed the highest surface roughness, followed by the Zr-B implants and, finally, the Zr-Ctr implants. The nonmodified ZrO2 implants showed statistically significant lower RTQs than all other implants. No significant differences in bone-implant contact or bone area filling the threads were observed. BS-SEM showed intact surface layers of the surface-modified implants after RTQ testing and revealed fracture of the interface bone rather than a separation. Conclusion: The present study showed a strong bone tissue response to surface-modified zirconia implants after 6 weeks of healing in rabbit bone. The modified zirconia implants showed a resistance to torque forces similar to that of oxidized implants and a four- to fivefold increase compared with machined zirconia implants. The findings suggest that surface-modified zirconia implants can reach firm stability in bone. [source]

Biomechanical and histological behavior of zirconia implants: an experiment in the rat

CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, Issue 4 2009
Ralf J. Kohal
Abstract Objective: This study aimed at evaluating the integration of zirconia implants in a rat femur model. Material and methods: Zirconia implants with two distinct surface topographies were compared with titanium implants with similar topographies. Titanium and zirconia implants were placed into the femurs of 42 male Sprague,Dawley rats. Four groups of implants were utilized: machined zirconia implants, zirconia implants with a rough surface, machined titanium implants, and titanium implants with an electrochemically roughened surface. After a healing period of 28 days, the load-bearing capacity between the bone and the implant surface was evaluated by a push-in test. Additionally, after a healing period of 14 and 28 days, respectively, bone tissue specimens containing the implants were processed and histologically analyzed. Results: The mean mineralized bone-to-implant contact showed the highest values after 14 and 28 days for the rough surfaces (titanium: 36%/45%; zirconia: 45%/59%). Also, the push-in test showed higher values for the textured implant surfaces, with no statistical significance between titanium (34 N) and zirconia (45.8 N). Conclusions: Within the limits of the animal investigation presented, it was concluded that all tested zirconia and titanium implant surfaces were biocompatible and osseoconductive. The presented surface modification of zirconia implants showed no difference regarding the histological and biomechanical results compared with an established electrochemically modified titanium implant surface. [source]