Two-piece zirconia implants supporting all-ceramic crowns: Six-year results of a prospective cohort study

Clinical and radiographic outcomes of a two-piece ceramic implant: one year results from a prospective clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To describe the clinical and radiographic performance and survival rate of a new two-piece ceramic implant system after at least 12 months of follow-up.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty-five implants were placed and followed up for at least 12 months (12.3 ± 1.5), in 50 patients. The implants were installed both in fresh extraction sockets and in healed sites and received provisional restoration when the clinical insertion torque was greater than 35Ncm. The primary results describe the survival rate of these implants. Clinical performance was evaluated through the evaluation of the Pink Esthetic Score (PES) and the degree of satisfaction of the patients. Bone loss was measured through radiographic measurements of the marginal bone loss in the mesial (MBLM) and distal (MBLD) sites.

RESULTS

The survival rate was 98.5%. The average MBLM was 0.24 mm (± 0.53) and the MBLD was 0.27 mm (± 0.57). A statistical difference was observed only when comparing immediate implants with delayed ones (MBLM - p = 0.046 and MBLD - p = 0.028) and when they received immediate provisionalization or not (MBLM - p = 0.009 and MBLD - p = 0.040). The PES before the intervention (T0) was 13.4 (± 0.8) and the PES at T2 (12-month follow-up) was 12.9 (± 1.5) (p = 1.14).

CONCLUSION

The new two-piece ceramic implant used in the present study showed predictable and reliable results, similar to those found with titanium implants after one year of follow-up.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

These implants can be used as an alternative to titanium implants in terms of the marginal bone loss and the degree of patient satisfaction.

Zirconia dental implants; the relationship between design and clinical outcome: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical outcome of different designs of zirconia dental implants.

DATA

This systematic review adhered to the PRISMA checklist and followed the PICO framework. The protocol is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022337228).

SOURCES

The search was conducted in March 2023 through four databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar) along with a search of references in the related reviews. Three authors reviewed on title, and abstract level and analysed the risk of bias, and all authors reviewed on a full-text level.

STUDY SELECTION

Clinical studies excluding case reports for patients treated with different designs of zirconia dental implants were included. From a total of 2728 titles, 71 full-text studies were screened, and 27 studies were included to assess the risk of bias (ROBINS-I tool) and data extraction. After quality assessment, four studies were included, and the remaining 23 excluded studies were narratively described.

RESULT

The included prospective studies with moderate risk of bias reported success and survival rates of one-piece implants that ranged between 95 and 98.4 % with no difference between different lengths and diameters. The acid-etched roughened surface showed higher clinical outcomes compared to other surface roughness designs.

CONCLUSION

Promising 5-year clinical outcomes were found for one-piece zirconia implants with no difference between different diameters and lengths. Concerning surface roughness, better outcomes were found when using the acid-etched implant surface. However, due to the limited available studies, further high-quality clinical studies comparing zirconia one-piece and two-piece implants with different diameters, lengths, and surface roughness are needed.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Based on this systematic review, under suitable clinical situations, the one-piece zirconia implants with diameters of 4.0 mm, 4.5 mm, or 5.5 mm and lengths of 8 mm, 10 mm, 12 mm, or 14 mm have similar promising clinical outcomes. Additionally, the acid-etched roughened implant surface may be preferable.

One-piece versus two-piece ceramic dental implants

In this narrative review, a structured comparison between one-piece and two-piece zirconia dental implants is highlighted. Ceramic dental implants have long ceased to be hype; on the contrary, they can offer a significant addition to the daily dental implant practice. Not only do their favourable aesthetics play a significant role, but their ability to work completely metal-free is of added value, particularly for patients with a proven allergy for Grade 5 titanium. Furthermore, the fact that peri-implantitis seems to appear only incidentally is an important supporting argument for their use as well. Whereas the original design of zirconia implants was formerly always of a one-piece/one-phase structure (the monobloc design), nowadays, two-piece/two-phase designs (the so-called hybrid concept) are also widely utilised to restore missing teeth. Both concepts have advantages and disadvantages, scientifically as well as clinically.For this paper, relevant articles from the recent scientific literature were selected from PubMed. The aim was to identify and summarise what has previously been published on one-piece versus two-piece ceramic implants. This article will compare the benefits and drawbacks of one-piece versus two-piece ceramic implants based on clinical- (design, different sizes, surgical protocol, prosthetics), scientific- (loading and eventual complications) and patient-related (costs and long-time perspectives) criteria.

Clinical outcomes of zirconia implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To assess the clinical outcomes of zirconia dental implants based on an updated systematic literature review.

METHODS

An electronic search was performed in three databases, last updated in June 2023, supplemented by hand searching. The eligibility criteria were clinical studies reporting patients rehabilitated with zirconia implants. The cumulative survival rate (CSR) of implants was calculated. A meta-analysis for marginal bone loss (MBL) under different follow-up times and a meta-regression assessing the relationship between mean MBL and follow-up were done.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies were included (4017 implants, 2083 patients). Seven studies had follow-up longer than 60 months. 172 implants failed, after a mean of 12.0 ± 16.1 months (min-max 0.3-86.0), of which 47 early failures, and 26 due to implant fracture, the majority in narrow-diameter implants. The 10-year CSR was 95.1%. Implants with coronal part prepared by drills presented statistically significant lower survival than non-prepared implants (p < 0.001). Two-piece implants presented lower survival than one-piece implants (p = 0.017). Implants discontinued from the market presented lower survival than the commercially available ones (p < 0.001). The difference in survival was not significant between implants in maxilla and mandible (p = 0.637). The mean MBL fluctuated between 0.632 and 2.060 mm over long periods of observation (up until 132 months). There was an estimated MBL increase of 0.005 mm per additional month of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Zirconia implants present high 10-year CSR and short-term low MBL. The review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022342055).

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The clinical outcomes observed for zirconia dental implants are very promising, although these have not yet been extensively studied as titanium alloy implants.

Clinical and radiographic outcomes of zirconia dental implants-A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

For the present review, the following focused question was addressed: In patients with root-analog dental implants, what is the effect of implants made of other materials than titanium (alloy) on implant survival, marginal bone loss (MBL), and technical and biological complications after at least 5 years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic (Medline, Embase, Web of Science) search was performed to identify observational clinical studies published from January 2000 investigating a minimum of 20 commercially available zirconia implants with a mean follow-up of at least 60 months. Primary outcome was implant survival, secondary outcomes included peri-implant MBL, probing depths (PDs), and technical and biological complications. Meta-analyses were performed to evaluate implant survival, MBL, and PD.

RESULTS

From 5129 titles, 580 abstracts were selected, and 111 full-text articles were screened. Finally, 4 prospective and 2 retrospective observational clinical cohort studies were included for data extraction. Meta-analyses estimated after 5 years of loading mean values of 97.2% (95% CI 94.7-99.1) for survival (277 implants, 221 patients), 1.1 mm (95% CI: 0.9-1.3) for MBL (229 implants, 173 patients), and 3.0 mm (95% CI 2.5-3.4) for PDs (231 implants, 175 patients).

CONCLUSIONS

After 5 years, commercially available zirconia implants showed reliable clinical performance based on survival rates, MBL, and PD values. However, more well-designed prospective clinical studies and randomized clinical trials investigating titanium and zirconia implants are needed to confirm the presently evaluated promising outcomes.

Do zirconia dental implants present better clinical results than titanium dental implants? A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this systematic review is to determine if the zirconia implants present better clinical results when compared to titanium implants.

METHODS

Searches were conducted in 5 databases including, until March 2022, by 2 independent reviewers, according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria established in the study and according whit this question: Do zirconia dental implants present better clinical results than titanium dental implants?

RESULTS

3235 studies were initially found in the researched databases. 03 randomized clinical trials were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. A total of 71 patients with 192 implants (87 titanium and 105 zirconia) were evaluated, showing an effectiveness of 87,4% and 78,1% respectively and there was no statistically significant difference in terms of survival rate in the meta-analysis (P = 0.70; I² = 0%). Still in the meta-analysis, there was no statistically significant difference between titanium and zirconia implants in relation to the pink esthetich score or bleeding on probing, however, a favorable difference was observed for titanium in relation to marginal bone loss (P = 0.001; I² = 0%). None of the studies evaluated had a low risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

Oral rehabilitation with zirconia implants showed no advantages over titanium in this systematic review. However, the small number of studies included and the uncertain risk of bias may raise doubts in this interpretation and the results should be analyzed with caution. New studies with greater methodological rigor, follow-up time and number of interventions should be performed in order to safely determine the indication for the use of zirconia implants.

Clinical evaluation and patient related outcomes of one- and two-piece zirconia implants at five years of loading: A case series study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to investigate the survival and biological and mechanical complications of one-piece and two-piece zirconia implants at five years of loading.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive patients receiving zirconia implants were studied, collecting data at five years of loading on their clinical history, peri-implant health status, mechanical complications, esthetic results, and patient related outcomes.

RESULTS

The study included 18 patients with 29 implants. The survival rate was 86% in implant-based analysis and 78% in patient-based analysis. There were no cases of peri-implantitis, but mucositis was present in 53% of implants. A mean of 4.1 ± 0.81 mm was obtained for probing depth and 1.6 ± 0.9 mm for crestal bone loss (radiographic assessment). There were no implant fractures. Major (10%) and minor (10%) prosthesis complications were observed. The esthetic outcome was moderate to almost perfect, with a high level of patient satisfaction. No significant association was found between survival rate and the presence of mucositis around one- or two-piece implants or any other study variable.

CONCLUSIONS

The survival rate is low for one- and two-piece zirconia implants. Both types of implants demonstrated a low mechanical complication rate. The incidence of periimplantitis is low but mucositis is present in 50%. Patient satisfaction related to esthetics and function is moderate to high. They represent a good option for patients requiring an alternative to titanium implants.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Zirconia implants appear to be an alternative to the titanium option and may be indicated for patients requiring "metal-free" restorations.

Survival and prosthetic complications of monolithic ceramic implant-supported single crowns and fixed partial dentures: A systematic review with meta-analysis

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Monolithic ceramic implant-supported restorations have been used to rehabilitate partially edentulous patients. However, knowledge of the survival and prosthetic complications of single crowns (SCs) and fixed partial dentures (FPDs) is limited.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical performance of monolithic ceramic implant-supported SCs and FPDs in terms of survival and prosthetic complication rates.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The systematic review was registered on the prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42017078568). Five electronic databases were independently searched by 2 authors for articles published until May 2022. In addition, a hand search was performed in the nonpeer-reviewed literature, specific journals, and reference lists of included articles. A single-arm meta-analysis was performed by using the R program. The risk of bias and quality were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tools and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. A total of 1298 monolithic ceramic implant-supported restorations (1116 SCs and 182 FPDs) were evaluated in 1193 participants, with a median observation time of 24 months (range: 12 to 72 months). Meta-analysis indicated the proportion of failures and prosthetic complication rates of 2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1% to 4%) for SCs. No difference was observed for monolithic zirconia and lithium disilicate SCs. In the FPDs, only monolithic zirconia was considered, with 1 failure reported totaling the proportion of failures of 0% (0% to 1%) and complication rates of 4% (0% to 12%). The most complications reported for both types of restorations were screw loosening, debonding, and minor chipping and were considered repairable. The included studies showed a low risk of bias and good quality.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of monolithic ceramic implant-supported SCs, independent of ceramic material, and monolithic zirconia implant-supported FPDs should be considered an effective and safe treatment option because of favorable short-term survival and low prosthetic complications. However, additional well-conducted studies with a longer-term follow-up and direct comparison between veneered restorations are recommended to reassess clinical performance.

Two-piece zirconia implants in the posterior mandible and maxilla: A cohort study with a follow-up period of 9 years

OBJECTIVES

Long-term follow-up observations of zirconia implants are rare. This study aimed at evaluating the clinical performance of two-piece zirconia implants in the posterior jaws over 9 years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty partially edentulous patients were treated with two-piece zirconia implants. In eight no primary stability could be achieved. Fifty-two patients received the final restoration (i.e., cemented fibreglass abutments and all-ceramic crowns). After 2 years, 2 implants failed and 4 dropouts were recorded. The remaining 46 patients with one target implant each were recalled at 9 years. Besides implant survival, clinical parameters at the implant level (plaque index-PI, bleeding on probing-BOP, probing depth-PD, mucosal recession-MR) were recorded and compared with previously collected data. Mechanical and technical complications were assessed.

RESULTS

Thirty patients responded. The mean observation period was of 111.1 ± 2.2 months. One implant was lost. Data recorded from the remaining 29 implants were analysed. PI values increased overtime. Mean BOP and PD remained unchanged during follow-up. No additional cases of peri-implantitis were recorded over the 10 diagnosed during the first 2 years of follow-up. No significant changes in mean MR values were detected over time, with 65% of the all included implants exhibiting no recession at 9 years and all the others, but one, a maximum MR of 1 mm. Three technical and 6 mechanical complications occurred in 7 patients between 2- and 9-years (6.9% and 20.7%, respectively, at patient level).

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of the present study, a high survival rate was registered. Albeit frequent mechanical and technical complications, two-piece zirconia implants could represent a valid solution for the replacement of single teeth in the posterior jaws.

German S3 guideline on the use of dental ceramic implants

PURPOSE

Based on the excellent long-term data, dental implants made of titanium are considered the international implantological standard for replacing missing teeth. However, ceramic implants made of zirconia (ZrO₂) have experienced a renaissance in the last 15 years due to constant innovations in materials and products, with material properties and soft tissue- and osseointegration behavior comparable to those of titanium. However, one limitation concerning ceramic implants is the lack of reliable long-term data, especially in the case of two-piece implant systems. As there is an increasing demand for ceramic implants from practitioners and patients, the German Society for Implantology (DGI) has decided to develop a guideline on the use of dental ceramic implants at the highest available evidence level with the involvement of experts in this field.

METHODS

Statements and recommendations were prepared after conducting a systematic literature search and an independent assessment process involving the relevant clinical literature from 2008 to 2021. The adopted recommendations and statements are summarized in this guideline.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

It confirms the feasible use of one-piece zirconia implants as an addendum/alternative to titanium implants. No final conclusion regarding the application of two-piece ceramic implant systems could be drawn on the basis of the existing data, thus its use can only be recommended after the patient has been informed in detail about the lack of long-term clinical data.

Results at the 1-Year Follow-Up of a Prospective Cohort Study with Short, Zirconia Implants

The objective of this study was to clinically and radiologically evaluate the performance of a short (8 mm), 1-piece, zirconia implant after an observation period of 1 year in function. A total of 47 patients with 1 missing tooth in the position of a premolar or molar were recruited. Short (8 mm), 1-piece, zirconia implants were placed and loaded after a healing period of 2 to 4 months with monolithic crowns made of 3 different materials. Implants were followed up for one year and clinically and radiologically assessed. A total of 46 implants were placed. One was excluded since no primary stability was achieved at implant placement. At the 1-year follow-up, mean marginal bone loss 1 year after loading was 0.05 ± 0.47 mm. None of the implants showed marginal bone loss greater than 1 mm or clinical signs of peri-implantitis. A total of 2 implants were lost during the healing phase and another after loading, resulting in a survival rate of 93% after 1 year. All lost implants showed a sudden increased mobility with no previous signs of marginal bone loss or peri-implant infection. The short, 8 mm, zirconia implants showed stable marginal bone levels over the short observation period of 1 year. Although they revealed slightly lower survival rates, they can be suggested for the use in sites with reduced vertical bone. Scientific data are very limited, and long-term data are not yet available, and therefore, they are needed.

Zirconia versus Titanium Implants: 8-Year Follow-Up in a Patient Cohort Contrasted with Histological Evidence from a Preclinical Animal Model

Zirconia ceramic (ZC) implants are becoming more common, but comparisons between preclinical histology and long-term clinical trials are rare. This investigation comprised (1) 8-year clinical follow-up of one-piece ZC or titanium (Ti) implants supporting full overdentures and (2) histomorphometric analysis of the same implants in an animal model, comparing implants with various surface treatments. Methods: (1) Clinical trial: 24 completely edentulous participants (2 groups of N = 12) received 7 implants (one-piece ball-abutment ZC or Ti; maxilla N = 4, mandible N = 3) restored with implant overdentures. Outcomes after 8-years included survival, peri-implant bone levels, soft-tissue responses, and prosthodontic issues. (2) Preclinical trial: 10 New Zealand sheep received 4 implants bilaterally in the femoral condyle: Southern Implants ZC or Ti one-piece implants, identical to the clinical trial, and controls: Southern ITC^® two-piece implants with the same surface or Nobel (NBC) anodised (TiUnite™) surface. %Bone-implant contact (%BIC) was measured after 12 weeks of unloaded healing. Results: 8 of 24 participants (33%) of an average age of 75 ± 8 years were recalled; 21% of original participants had died, and 46% could not be contacted. 80.4% of implants survived; excluding palatal sites, 87.5% of Ti and 79% of ZC implants survived. All failed implants were in the maxilla. Three ZC implants had fractured. Bone loss was similar for Ti vs. ZC; pocket depths (p = 0.04) and attachment levels (p = 0.02) were greater for Ti than ZC implants. (1.7 ± 1.6 mm vs. 1.6 ± 1.3 mm). All implants in sheep femurs survived. %BIC was not statistically different for one-piece blasted surface Ti (80 ± 19%) versus ZC (76 ± 20%) or ITC^® (75 ± 16 mm); NBC had significantly higher %BIC than ITC (84 ± 17%, p = 0.4). Conclusion: Short-term preclinical results for ZC and Ti one-piece implants showed excellent bone-implant contact in unloaded femoral sites. This differed from the long-term clinical results in older-aged, edentulous participants. While ZC and Ti implants showed equivalent performance, the risks of peri-implantitis and implant loss in older, completely edentulous patients remain a significant factor.

Surface Structure of Zirconia Implants: An Integrative Review Comparing Clinical Results with Preclinical and In Vitro Data

Background: The purpose of this review was to analyze and correlate the findings for zirconia implants in clinical, preclinical and in vitro cell studies in relation to surface structure. Methods: Electronic searches were conducted to identify clinical, preclinical and in vitro cell studies on zirconia implant surfaces. The primary outcomes were mean bone loss (MBL) for clinical studies, bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and removal torque (RT) for preclinical studies and cell spreading, cell proliferation and gene expression for cell studies. The secondary outcomes included comparisons of data found for those surfaces that were investigated in all three study types. Results: From 986 screened titles, 40 studies were included for data extraction. In clinical studies, only micro-structured surfaces were investigated. The lowest MBL was reported for sandblasted and subsequently etched surfaces, followed by a sinter and slurry treatment and sandblasted surfaces. For BIC, no clear preference of one surface structure was observable, while RT was slightly higher for micro-structured than smooth surfaces. All cell studies showed that cell spreading and cytoskeletal formation were enhanced on smooth compared with micro-structured surfaces. Conclusions: No correlation was observed for the effect of surface structure of zirconia implants within the results of clinical, preclinical and in vitro cell studies, underlining the need for standardized procedures for human, animal and in vitro studies.

Classification and Properties of Dental Zirconia as Implant Fixtures and Superstructures

Various types of zirconia are widely used for the fabrication of dental implant superstructures and fixtures. Zirconia-alumina composites, such as ATZ and NanoZR, are adequate for implant fixtures because they have excellent mechanical strength in spite of insufficient esthetic properties. On the other hand, yttria-stabilized zirconia has been used for implant superstructures because of sufficient esthetic properties. They are classified to 12 types with yttria content, monochromatic/polychromatic, uniform/hybrid composition, and monolayer/multilayer. Zirconia with a higher yttria content has higher translucency and lower mechanical strength. Fracture strength of superstructures strongly depends on the strength on the occlusal contact region. It suggests that adequate zirconia should be selected as the superstructure crown, depending on whether strength or esthetics is prioritized. Low temperature degradation of zirconia decreases with yttria content, but even 3Y zirconia has a sufficient durability in oral condition. Although zirconia is the hardest dental materials, zirconia restorative rarely subjects the antagonist teeth to occlusal wear when it is mirror polished. Furthermore, zirconia has less bacterial adhesion and better soft tissue adhesion when it is mirror polished. This indicates that zirconia has advantageous for implant superstructures. As implant fixtures, zirconia is required for surface modification to obtain osseointegration to bone. Various surface treatments, such as roughening, surface activation, and coating, has been developed and improved. It is concluded that an adequately selected zirconia is a suitable material as implant superstructures and fixtures because of mechanically, esthetically, and biologically excellent properties.