Abstract
Various protocols are available to preclinically assess the fracture resistance of zirconia oral implants. The objective of the present review was to determine the impact of different treatments (dynamic loading, hydrothermal aging) and implant features (e.g., material, design or manufacturing) on the fracture resistance of zirconia implants. An electronic screening of two databases (MEDLINE/Pubmed, Embase) was performed. Investigations including > 5 screw-shaped implants providing information to calculate the bending moment at the time point of static loading to fracture were considered. Data was extracted and meta-analyses were conducted using multilevel mixed-effects generalized linear models (GLMs). The Šidák method was used to correct for multiple testing. The initial search resulted in 1864 articles, and finally 19 investigations loading 731 zirconia implants to fracture were analyzed. In general, fracture resistance was affected by the implant design (1-piece > 2-piece, p = 0.004), material (alumina-toughened zirconia/ATZ > yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal/Y-TZP, p = 0.002) and abutment preparation (untouched > modified/grinded, p < 0.001). In case of 2-piece implants, the amount of dynamic loading cycles prior to static loading (p < 0.001) or anatomical crown supply (p < 0.001) negatively affected the outcome. No impact was found for hydrothermal aging. Heterogeneous findings of the present review highlight the importance of thoroughly and individually evaluating the fracture resistance of every zirconia implant system prior to market release.
Highlights
To date, titanium can be considered the gold standard material in oral implantology [1]
The majority of dental experts are of the opinion that zirconia oral implants will be coexistent with titanium implants in the near future [4]
Parameters like bone-to-implant contact (BIC), push-in values and removal torque were assessed in animal experiments
Summary
Titanium can be considered the gold standard material in oral implantology [1]. Zirconia implants with various surface modifications (additive by sintering a porous ceramic layer, subtractive by sandblasting and/or acid-etching or, for example, by texturing the inner surface of a mold in case of an injection-molded implant) can nowadays be considered comparable to titanium implants by means of osseointegration in preclinical studies [6]. This finding was confirmed in clinical trials, limited to short- and mid-term observation periods and the replacement of up to three adjacent missing teeth (single-tooth restorations and three-unit fixed dental prostheses) using one-piece ceramic implants [7]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
