The Performance of Titanium-Zirconium Implants in the Elderly: A Biomechanical Comparative Study in the Minipig

Pre-Clinical Models in Implant Dentistry: Past, Present, Future

Biomedical research seeks to generate experimental results for translation to clinical settings. In order to improve the transition from bench to bedside, researchers must draw justifiable conclusions based on data from an appropriate model. Animal testing, as a prerequisite to human clinical exposure, is performed in a range of species, from laboratory mice to larger animals (such as dogs or non-human primates). Minipigs appear to be the animal of choice for studying bone surgery around intraoral dental implants. Dog models, well-known in the field of dental implant research, tend now to be used for studies conducted under compromised oral conditions (biofilm). Regarding small animal models, research studies mostly use rodents, with interest in rabbit models declining. Mouse models remain a reference for genetic studies. On the other hand, over the last decade, scientific advances and government guidelines have led to the replacement, reduction, and refinement of the use of all animal models in dental implant research. In new development strategies, some in vivo experiments are being progressively replaced by in vitro or biomaterial approaches. In this review, we summarize the key information on the animal models currently available for dental implant research and highlight (i) the pros and cons of each type, (ii) new levels of decisional procedures regarding study objectives, and (iii) the outlook for animal research, discussing possible non-animal options.

Comparison of the Use of Titanium–Zirconium Alloy and Titanium Alloy in Dental Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The aim of this study was to compare the values of bone-implant contact (BIC) and removal torque (RTQ) reported in different animal studies for titanium–zirconium (TiZr) and titanium (Ti) dental implants. This review has been registered at PROSPERO under number CRD42016047745. We undertook an electronic search for data published up until November 2017 using the PubMed/Medline, Embase, and The Cochrane Library databases. Eligibility criteria included in vivo studies, comparisons between Ti and TiZr implants in the same study, and studies published in English that evaluated BIC and RTQ. After inclusion criteria, 8 studies were assessed for eligibility. Of the 8 studies, 7 analyzed BIC outcome and 3 analyzed RTQ outcome. Among such studies, 6 studies were considered for meta-analysis of quantitative for BIC and 2 studies for RTQ. There was no significant difference for BIC analysis (P = .89; random ration [RR]: −0.21; 95% confidence interval [CI]: −3.14 to 2.72). The heterogeneity of the primary outcome studies was considered low (7.19; P = .21; I2: 30%). However, the RTQ analysis showed different results favoring the TiZr dental implants (P = .001; RR: 23.62; 95%CI: 9.15 to 38.10). Low heterogeneity was observed for RTQ (χ2: 1.25; P = .26; I2: 20%). Within the limitations of this study, there was no difference between TiZr and Ti alloys implants in terms of BIC. However, TiZr implants had higher RTQ than Ti alloys.