Zirconia vs. Titanium Dental Implants: Primary Stability In-Vitro Analysis

Corrosion Resistance of Titanium Dental Implant Abutments: Comparative Analysis and Surface Characterization

Metals subjected to the oral environment are prone to corrosion over time and this can be harmful. Metallic restoration components such as dental subgingival implant abutments are exposed to pH changes and different ions while in contact with saliva. The aim of the study was to evaluate the corrosion resistance of titanium dental implant abutments and to compare and contrast the surface characteristics of these alloys before and after corrosion. The corrosion examination (Ecorr, jcorr, OCP, polarization curve) of two implant abutments (TiDesign EV, Astra Tech, Dentsply, York, PA, USA; Individual Titanium Abutment, Apollo Implants Components, Pabianice, Poland) was performed in 0.9% NaCl and 5% HCl. Moreover, specimens were investigated using SEM-EDS before and after the corrosion test. The value of jcorr in NaCl was higher for Astra (34.2 × 10-8 ± 2.5 × 10-8 A/cm2) than for Apollo (8.8 × 10-8 ± 2.5 × 10-8 A/cm2). Whereas, in HCl, the opposite relationship was observed (Astra 2.9 × 10-4 ± 0.8 × 10-4 A/cm2 and Apollo 62.7 × 10-4 ± 9.3 × 10-4 A/cm2). An average reactive anodic current density in NaCl for Astra amounted up to ~0.2 × 10-5-1.5 × 10-5 A/cm2, while for Apollo-up to ~3.3-9.7 × 10-7 A/cm2. The composition of both alloys after corrosion in NaCl demonstrated some changes: a decrease in the Ti, and Al and an increase in oxygen content. Hence, both alloys after corrosion in HCl demonstrated some minor changes in the elemental composition. Based on the results it can be concluded that: 1. Astra and Apollo abutments revealed good corrosion resistance and a passivation layer on the surface. 2. Apollo abutments exhibited better corrosion resistance in a neutral environment, suggesting that Astra abutments were found to be more resistant to corrosion in an acidic medium.

Primary stability of implant placement and loading related to dental implant materials and designs: A literature review

A variety of implant placement and loading protocols are identified, ranging from immediate implant placement on the day of extraction to delayed placement for at least 6 months after complete healing. The method of assessment of implant placement and loading plays an important role in the implantation. The expected clinical outcomes depend largely on multiple factors, such as the macroscopic design of the implant, surgical technique, and the quality and quantity of local bone in contact with the implant, which would be described in detail. The purpose of this literature review was to explore the relationship between the factors influencing the implant placement stability and implant design. By understanding the original appearance of implant design and the stability requirements of implant placement, it is hoped that more research in the future can meet the needs of dentists and patients.

Zirconia Dental Implants as a Different Alternative to Titanium: A Literature Review

Aim

This article aims to provide an overview of the scientific evidence comparing zirconium dental implants with titanium implants.

Materials and Methods

A comprehensive literature review was conducted using the MEDLINE database accessed through PubMed and Scopus. The search included the keywords "dental implant," "zirconia dental implant," and "titanium dental implant" without any date restrictions.

Results

The review examined research articles focusing on the physical and chemical characteristics of titanium and zirconia dental implants. Additionally, studies investigating the strength and translucency of zirconia, as well as the osseointegration of both materials, were analyzed. However, no conclusive evidence demonstrating the superiority of either material was found in the current literature.

Conclusion

Taking into account the findings of this narrative study, no significant differences were identified between zirconium and titanium dental implants. Further scientific research is required to establish a definitive recommendation regarding the use of one material over the other.

Comparison between bone-implant interfaces of microtopographically modified zirconia and titanium implants

The aim of this study was to investigate the surface characteristics and evaluate the bone-implant interfaces of injection molded zirconia implants with or without surface treatment and compare them with those of conventional titanium implants. Four different zirconia and titanium implant groups (n = 14 for each group) were prepared: injection-molded zirconia implants without surface treatment (IM ZrO₂); injection-molded zirconia implants with surface treatment via sandblasting (IM ZrO₂-S); turned titanium implants (Ti-turned); and titanium implants with surface treatments via sandblasting with large-grit particles and acid-etching (Ti-SLA). Scanning electron microscopy, confocal laser scanning microscopy, and energy dispersive spectroscopy were used to assess the surface characteristics of the implant specimens. Eight rabbits were used, and four implants from each group were placed into the tibiae of each rabbit. Bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and bone area (BA) were measured to evaluate the bone response after 10-day and 28-day healing periods. One-way analysis of variance with Tukey's pairwise comparison was used to find any significant differences. The significance level was set at α = 0.05. Surface physical analysis showed that Ti-SLA had the highest surface roughness, followed by IM ZrO₂-S, IM ZrO₂, and Ti-turned. There were no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) in BIC and BA among the different groups according to the histomorphometric analysis. This study suggests that injection-molded zirconia implants are reliable and predictable alternatives to titanium implants for future clinical applications.