Thirty years of transitional research in zirconia (Zr) ceramics has led to significant improvements in the biomedical field, especially in dental implantology. Oral implants made of yttria-tetragonal zirconia polycrystals (Y-TZP) because of their excellent mechanical properties, good biocompatibility, and esthetically acceptable color have emerged as an attractive metal-free alternative to titanium (Ti) implants. The aim of the review was to highlight the translation research in Zr dental implants that has been conducted over the past 3 decades using preclinical animal models. A computer search of electronic databases, primarily PubMed, was performed with the following key words: “zirconia ceramics AND animal trials,” “ceramic implants AND animal trials,” “zirconia AND animal trials,” “zirconia AND in vivo animal trials,” without any language restriction. However, the search was limited to animal trials discussing percentage bone-implant contact (%BIC) around zirconia implants/discs. This search resulted in 132 articles (reviews, in vivo studies, and animal studies) of potential interest. We restricted our search terms to “zirconia/ceramic,” “bone-implant-contact,” and “animal trials” and found 29 relevant publications, which were then selected for full-text reading. Reasons for exclusion included the article's not being an animal study, being a review article, and not discussing %BIC around Zr implants/discs. Most of the studies investigated BIC around Zr in rabbits (30%), pigs (approximately 20%), dogs, sheep, and rats. This review of the literature shows that preclinical animal models can be successfully used to investigate osseointegration around Zr ceramics. Results of the reviewed studies demonstrated excellent %BIC around Zr implants. It should be noted that most of the studies investigated %BIC/removal torque under nonloading conditions, and results would have been somewhat different in functional loading situations because of inherent limitations of Zr ceramics. Further trials are needed to evaluate the performance of Zr ceramics in clinical conditions using implants designed and manufactured via novel techniques that enhance their biomechanical properties.

Introduction

Zirconium dioxide is one of the most widely used ceramic materials because of its unique qualities. Zirconia (Zr) ceramics were first introduced to implant dentistry in the form of coatings onto metal-based endosseous implants to improve osseointegration. Over the past 3 decades, various forms of ceramic coatings, including bioactive ceramics (hydroxyapatite, bioactive glasses) and inert ceramics (aluminium oxide and zirconium oxide), have been used on dental implants.1  Thanks to translational research in Zr biomaterials, dental implants made of yttria-tetragonal zirconia polycrystals (Y-TZP) have emerged as an attractive metal-free alternative to Ti implants.24  Zirconia-yttria ceramics, also known as yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystals (Y-TZP), have attracted considerable attention and have been proposed as a viable option for dental implant materials because of their excellent mechanical properties, good biocompatibility, and esthetically acceptable color.5  Thirty years of transitional research in Zr ceramics has led to significant improvements in the biomedical field, especially in dental implantology. Now, Zr is used not only as a coating material but also to manufacture dental implants that have improved esthetics and function for patients.

In vitro and in vivo animal studies, investigating different aspects of Y-TZP implants, have shown promising results that have strongly encouraged their clinical use in humans.24,6  Contrary to Ti implants that have shown some immune reactions,79  Zr is highly biocompatible, with no local or systemic toxic effects of its implantation.10,11  It has become the first choice for patients with metal hypersensitivity issues (especially with Ti implants) for their oral rehabilitation needs.12  Reduced inflammatory infiltrates, decreased microvessel density, and a low bacterial colonization potential were observed around Zr when compared with Ti implants.13  Biomechanical investigations on Zr oral implants using a 3-dimensional finite element analysis showed that Y-TZP implants could sustain chewing stresses and have similar stress distribution as commercially pure Ti.4,11  The outcomes of animal research, in vitro studies, and case reports using Zr implants, abutments, and frameworks on humans have been encouraging, with high success rates.24,1416 

The use of animal models is an essential step in the testing of new biomaterials before their use in humans. Preclinical animal models allow high-magnification histological measurement and quantification of the amount of bone that forms in contact with the implant surface. Biomedical research has used many different kinds of animal models in dental implant research, each having differences in bone remodeling and bone architecture, with potential advantages and disadvantages.17  Investigators have used the tibia of rabbits,3,1820  tibia of minipigs,6  mandible of minipigs,21  maxilla of pigs,22  maxilla of monkeys,11  mandible of dogs,23  and jaws and femur of sheep24,25  to investigate the bone-implant contact (BIC) of Zr implants.

During the past 15 years, there has been a gradual increase in the use of Zr ceramic dental implants, mainly because of their esthetic qualities and provision of a metal-free approach, especially for patients who show concern for metal sensitivity and would like to avoid metal restorations in their mouth, including amalgam restorations and Ti implants. The aim of the review was to investigate BIC around Zr implants in preclinical animal models. The review will highlight the importance of preclinical experimental models and the preferences of researchers in using different animal models while investigating Zr ceramics. The analysis will provide the current picture of the biomechanical qualities and performance of Zr ceramic implants using translation models. Although the empirical evidence suggests that Zr implants can be a viable treatment option for Ti implants in particular cases, the clinical performance of the Zr ceramic implants is still debated, as there are no recommendations, protocols, or consensus for clinicians to follow to achieve long-term successful clinical outcomes of Zr implants. The article will invite the reader to critically review the reasons and the logical basis for choosing Zr implants, while keeping in mind the success and limitations of the biomaterial as reflected in the translation research over the past 30 years.

Materials and Methods

To recognize studies suitable for inclusion in this systemic review, internationally published literature addressing Zr ceramic implants and studies investigating percentage BIC in (%BIC) preclinical animal models published up until July 2016 were included in the review. A computer search of electronic databases, primarily PubMed, was performed with the following keywords: “zirconia ceramics AND animal trials,” “ceramic implants AND animal trials,” “zirconia AND animal trials,” “zirconia AND in vivo animal trials,” without any language restriction. However, the search was limited to animal trials discussing %BIC around Zr implants/discs. Manual searches of the bibliographies of all the retrieved articles were also performed to include additional eligible publications. The literature was screened by 2 authors (A.S. and S.Z.) for relevancy. The search strategy is given in the flow diagram (Figure 1).

Figure 1

Flow chart for the search strategy.

Figure 1

Flow chart for the search strategy.

  • Inclusion criteria

    1. • Studies investigated %BIC around Zr implants/discs

    2. • In vivo animal trials

  • Exclusion criteria

    1. • %BIC around Zr implants/discs was not studied

    2. • Not an animal study

    3. • Review article/case reports

Results

This search resulted in 132 articles (reviews, in vivo animal, and laboratory studies) of potential interest. We restricted our search terms to “zirconia/ceramic,” “bone-implant-contact” and “animal trials” and found 29 relevant publications, which were then selected for full-text reading. Reasons for exclusion included the article was not an animal study, the article was a review article, and the article did not discuss BIC around Zr implants/discs. Most of the studies investigated BIC around Zr in rabbits (30%), pigs (around 20%), dogs, sheep, and rats. A detailed description of the %BIC, observation period, and the method of detection is presented in the Table.

Table

Review of the literature: in vivo animal trials investigating bone-implant contact/removal torque around zirconia implants

Review of the literature: in vivo animal trials investigating bone-implant contact/removal torque around zirconia implants
Review of the literature: in vivo animal trials investigating bone-implant contact/removal torque around zirconia implants
Table

Extended

Extended
Extended

Discussion

Zirconia ceramics as a dental implant material have been under investigation for the past 4 decades. Zirconia has shown predictable osseointegration, cell metabolism, and positive tissue response in the in vivo animal studies. Studies have shown good biocompatibility for Zr implants under loaded conditions.3,4  The review of the literature demonstrates that a wide range of animal models have been used to evaluate osseointegration of Zr implants. Most of the researchers used rabbits and minipigs to assess Zr implants. Rabbit is the most commonly used preclinical animal for dental implant studies because of the ease of handling and the low costs, but it is the least similar to human bone. The domestic pig demonstrates a strong similarity to human bone, but the pig may be difficult to manage because of its size and the expenses.17  The use of animal models such as nonhuman primates, rats, beagle dogs, and mice for guided tissue regeneration experimentation is well documented and has provided most of the histologic data on periodontal tissue healing, thus demonstrating that animal models are suitable for periodontal studies.46 

Zirconia has shown similar %BIC to that of Ti implants in most of the studies.21,30,37  Koch and colleagues37  compared 1-piece Zr dental implants with Ti implant screws in a dog model and found that the BIC of Zr implants was statistically equivalent to Ti implants. Another study of 1-piece Zr implants in minipigs found similar results.21  Lee and colleagues30  in a beagle dog model demonstrated excellent esthetic and soft-tissue outcomes of 1-piece Zr implants. However, the authors also stressed the need for well-designed, long-term clinical trials to show peri-implant bone outcomes and clinical performance of 1-piece Zr implants in functional loading conditions.

Some recent studies have also reported poorer osseointegration for Zr implants (59.3% after 4 weeks of healing and 67.1% after 12 weeks of healing) when compared with Ti implants (64.1% after 4 weeks of healing and 73.6% after 12 weeks of healing) in the domestic pig model.35  A recent study investigated %BIC around 1-piece Zr and Ti implants placed in the jaws and femurs of domestic sheep.25  They showed superior values for %BIC for Zr compared with Ti implants after 12 weeks of healing in the sheep mandible and femur. The femur implants were submerged and unloaded; the mandibular implants were placed using a 1-stage transgingival protocol and were nonsubmerged implants. However, a higher failure rate of 1-piece Zr implants in the clinical condition was noted, as demonstrated in other clinical studies.47 

In the quest to achieve more predictable osseointegration, especially in difficult clinical sites, researchers have attempted to alloy zirconium to Ti.48,49  Comparable results have been reported with this new Ti-Zr alloy compared with traditional commercially pure Ti implants. The recombinant human bone morphogenic protiens-2 (rhBMP-2) gel has also been applied to the Zr implant surface to enhance the local bone formation and the speedy recovery of the prepared implant site for early osseointegration.30  The researchers found similar %BIC to the Zr implants with rhBMP-2 gel; however, improved healing of the implant site was observed. A recent report has demonstrated excellent esthetic and soft-tissue outcomes of 1-piece Zr implants.30  The authors stressed the need for well-designed, long-term clinical trials to demonstrate peri-implant bone outcomes and clinical performance of 1-piece Zr implants.

Implant surface topography is the key determinant of successful osseointegration and can influence clinical results. Surface properties of different implants may vary because of the differences in manufacturing and coating techniques used in the preparation of implants. The literature on the risk of reduction of the life span of the Zr ceramics associated with the surface alterations is scarce.50  Research has shown that the surface modifications of an implant with Zr may have a positive effect on bone-implant contact.51  However, research has also reported that water diffusion can occur that can alter the stability of the tetragonal phase due to the humid atmosphere.52  Furthermore, grinding or sandblasting of the Zr surface may be responsible for alteration in the phase integrity of the material that can increase the susceptibility to the aging of the material.53  Studies have shown that high cyclic contact loading during mastication can initiate crack nucleation and propagation by subcritical crack growth.54  In addition, manufacturing imperfections and chipping of thread tips of Zr implants may also affect successful osseointegration and can result in implant failure (Figure 2). So far, the fracture of the material and cracks have been attributed as the major technical complications related to Zr implants. These cracks during loading conditions can propagate and may lead to early implant failure.55,56  Bending moment can induce forces combined with lateral occlusal loading forces and can result in implant failure during function, as can be seen in a scanning electron microscopy image of a fractured proto-type Zr implant (Figures 3 and 4). It is well established that the structural integrity of the Zr can be compromised in the presence of humidity, where the transition from the tetragonal to the monoclinic polymorph of Zr is accelerated.

Figure 2

Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) of 1-piece prototype zirconia implant. (a) Low magnification (×50, bar 500 μm) of SEM image of a wide diameter (5 × 10 mm 1-piece Zr implant [tip of thread]). Chipping of the thread tip shows low resistance of Zr to fracture (arrow) during micomachining the implant surface. (b) SEM image (8.0 KV x, bar 200 μm) micromachining have caused surface wear and chipping of thread tip (arrows).

Figure 2

Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) of 1-piece prototype zirconia implant. (a) Low magnification (×50, bar 500 μm) of SEM image of a wide diameter (5 × 10 mm 1-piece Zr implant [tip of thread]). Chipping of the thread tip shows low resistance of Zr to fracture (arrow) during micomachining the implant surface. (b) SEM image (8.0 KV x, bar 200 μm) micromachining have caused surface wear and chipping of thread tip (arrows).

Figure 3

(a) Clinical image of a fractured prototype 1-piece zirconia implant (3.8 × 111 mm) after 2 years of function. (b) Scanning electron microscopy image of the fractured tip shows fracture pattern.

Figure 3

(a) Clinical image of a fractured prototype 1-piece zirconia implant (3.8 × 111 mm) after 2 years of function. (b) Scanning electron microscopy image of the fractured tip shows fracture pattern.

Figure 4

Scanning electron microscopy image of the fractured tip at different magnifications that shows crack propagation, fatigue striations, and the fracture pattern, as pointed with arrows. SEM also demonstrates surface impurities.

Figure 4

Scanning electron microscopy image of the fractured tip at different magnifications that shows crack propagation, fatigue striations, and the fracture pattern, as pointed with arrows. SEM also demonstrates surface impurities.

This review of the literature shows that preclinical animal models can be successfully used to investigate osseointegration around Zr ceramics. Results of the reviewed studies demonstrated excellent %BIC around Zr implants. However, it should be noted that most of the studies investigated %BIC/removal torque under nonloading conditions, and results would have been somewhat different in functional loading situations due to inherent limitations of Zr ceramics, as discussed by Daou53  and Bozkaya et al.57  It should also be acknowledged that Zr is a brittle ceramic and is prone to structural imperfections during its manufacture; hence, it is suggested that strict quality standards should be adopted while micromachining Zr implant surfaces. This could be verified by a number of reports that have discussed Zr implant fracture during placement or during the function.55,58  To date, translational research has answered many questions related to osseointegration of Zr implants, and hence Zr has shown significant improvements in its mechanical properties. Nevertheless, structural and mechanical properties of Zr dental implants still require improvements to withstand loading conditions for the long-term success of dental implants in clinical settings. Until we accomplish the challenge of manufacturing well-designed, structurally strong 2-piece Zr implants, which is most appropriate for the long-term clinical success of the dental implants, the general use of Zr to replace missing teeth should be carefully appraised. Controlled trials are needed to evaluate the performance of Zr implants in clinical conditions using implants designed and manufactured via novel techniques that enhance the biomechanical properties of Zr.

Abbreviations

    Abbreviations
     
  • %BIC

    percentage bone-implant contact

  •  
  • BIC

    bone-implant contact

  •  
  • APC

    anodic plasma-chemical treatment

  •  
  • BV

    bone volume

  •  
  • Cap

    calcium phosphate

  •  
  • CP

    commercially pure

  •  
  • CS

    chondroitin sulfate

  •  
  • CT

    computerized tomography

  •  
  • mds

    modified surface

  •  
  • Ox

    oxide

  •  
  • PIM

    powder injection molded

  •  
  • pQCT

    peripheral quantitative computer tomography

  •  
  • rBVD

    relative peri-implant bone level density

  •  
  • rhBMP-2

    recombinant human bone morphogenic protein–2

  •  
  • RT/RTQ

    removal torque

  •  
  • SEM

    scanning electron microscopy

  •  
  • SIE

    selective infiltration–etched

  •  
  • SLA

    sandblasted-large grit-acid etched

  •  
  • Ti

    titanium

  •  
  • TV

    trabecular volume

  •  
  • Y-TZP

    yttria-tetragonal zirconia polycrystals

  •  
  • Zr

    zirconia

Note

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

References
1
Le Guéhennec
L,
Soueidan
A,
Layrolle
P,
Amouriq
Y.
Surface treatments of titanium dental implants for rapid osseointegration
.
Dent Mater
.
2007
;
23
:
844
854
.
2
Kohal
RJ,
Wolkewitz
M,
Hinze
JS,
Han
JS,
Bächle
M,
Butz
F.
Biomechanical and histological behavior of zirconia implants: an experiment in the rat
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2009
;
20
:
333
339
.
3
Scarano
A,
Piattelli
M,
Vrespa
G,
Caputi
S,
Piattelli
A.
Bacterial adhesion on titanium nitride-coated and uncoated implants: an in vivo human study
.
J Oral Implantol
.
2003
;
29
:
80
85
.
4
Akagawa
Y,
Hosokawa
R,
Sato
Y,
Kamayama
K.
Comparison between free standing and tooth-connected partially stabilized zirconia implants after two years' function in monkeys: a clinical and histologic study
.
J Prosthet Dent
.
1998
;
80
:
551
558
.
5
Chevalier
J,
Gremillard
L.
Ceramics for medical applications: a picture for the next 20 years
.
J Eur Ceram Soc
.
2009
;
29
:
1245
1255
.
6
Depprich
R,
Zipprich
H,
Ommerborn
M,
et al.
Osseointegration of zirconia implants compared with titanium: an in vivo study
.
Head Face Med
.
2008
;
4
:
30
.
7
Sicilia
A,
Cuesta
S,
Coma
G,
et al.
Titanium allergy in dental implant patients: a clinical study on 1500 consecutive patients
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2008
;
19
:
823
835
.
8
Siddiqi
A,
Payne
AGT,
De-Silva
RK,
Duncan
WJ.
Titanium allergy: could it affect dental implant integration?
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2011
;
22
:
673
680
.
9
Tawse-Smith
A,
Ma
S,
Siddiqi
A,
Duncan
WJ,
Girvan
L,
Hussain
HM.
Titanium particles in peri-implant tissues: surface analysis and histologic response
.
Clin Adv Periodont
.
2013
;
2
:
232
238
.
10
Sevilla
P,
Sandino
C,
Arciniegas
M,
MartÌnez-Gomis
J,
Peraire
M,
Gil
FJ.
Evaluating mechanical properties and degradation of YTZP dental implants
.
Mater Sci Eng
.
2010
;
30
:
14
19
.
11
Kohal
RJ,
Wen
D,
Bächle
M,
Strub
JR.
Loaded custom-made zirconia and titanium implants show similar osseointegration: an animal experiment
.
J Periodontol
.
2004
;
75
:
1260
1266
.
12
Oliva
J,
Oliva
X,
Oliva
JD.
Five-year success rate of 831 consecutively placed zirconia dental implants in humans: a comparison of three different rough surfaces
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2010
;
25
:
336
344
.
13
Rimondini
L,
Cerroni
L,
Carrassi
A,
Torricelli
P.
Bacterial colonization of zirconia ceramic surfaces: an in vitro and in vivo study
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2002
;
17
:
793
798
.
14
Depprich
R,
Zipprich
H,
Ommerborn
M,
et al.
Osseointegration of zirconia implants: an SEM observation of the bone-implant interface
.
Head Face Med
.
2008
;
4
:
25
.
15
Wenz
HJ,
Bartsch
J,
Wolfart
S,
Kern
M.
Osseointegration and clinical success of zirconia dental implants: a systematic review
.
Int J Prosthodont
.
2008
;
21
:
27
36
.
16
Piconi
C,
Maccauro
G.
Zirconia as a ceramic biomaterial
.
Biomaterials
.
1999
;
20
:
1
25
.
17
Pearce
AI,
Richards
RG,
Milz
S,
Schneider
E,
Pearce
SG.
Animal models for implant biomaterial research in bone: a review
.
Eur Cells Mater
.
2007
;
13
:
1
10
.
18
Rocchietta
I,
Fontana
F,
Addis
A,
Schupbach
P,
Simion,
M.
Surface-modified zirconia implants: tissue response in rabbits
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2009
;
20
:
844
850
.
19
Thomsen
P,
Larsson
C,
Ericson
LE,
Sennerby
J,
Lausmaa
B,
Kasemo
B.
Structure of the interface between rabbit cortical bone and implants of gold, zirconium and titanium
.
J Mater Sci Mater Med
.
1997
;
11
:
653
665
.
20
Sennerby
L,
Dasmah
A,
Larsson
B,
Iverhed
M.
Bone tissue responses to surface-modified zirconia implants: a histomorphometric and removal torque study in the rabbit
.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res
.
2005
;
7
:
S13
S20
.
21
Stadlinger
B,
Hennig
M,
Eckelt
U,
Kuhlisch
E,
Mai
R.
Comparison of zirconia and titanium implants after a short healing period: a pilot study in mini-pigs
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg
.
2010
;
39
:
585
592
.
22
Gahlert
M,
Röhling
S,
Wieland
M,
Sprecher
CM,
Kniha
H,
Milz
S.
Osseointegration of zirconia and titanium dental implants: a histological and histomorphometrical study in the maxilla of pigs
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2009
;
20
:
1247
1253
.
23
Dubruille
JH,
Viguier
E,
Le Naour
G,
Dubruille
MT,
Auriol
M,
Le Charpentier
Y.
Evaluation of combinations of titanium, zirconia, and alumina implants with 2 bone fillers in the dog
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
1999
;
14
:
271
277
.
24
Duncan
W.
Sheep Mandibular Models for Dental Implantology Research
[PhD thesis]. University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand;
2005
.
25
Siddiqi
A,
Duncan
W,
De-Silva
RK,
Zafar
S.
One-piece zirconia ceramic versus titanium implants in the jaw and femur of a sheep model: a pilot study
.
Biomed Res Int
.
2016
. doi:.
26
Calvo-Guirado
JL,
Aguilar Salvatierra
A,
Gargallo-Albiol
J,
Delgado-Ruiz
RA,
Maté Sanchez JE, Satorres-Nieto M. Zirconia with laser-modified microgrooved surface vs. titanium implants covered with melatonin stimulates bone formation: experimental study in tibia rabbits
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2015
;
26
:
1421
1429
.
27
Calvo-Guirado
JL,
Aguilar-Salvatierra
A,
Gomez-Moreno
G,
Guardia
J,
Delgado-Ruiz
RA,
Mate-Sanchez de-Val JE. Histological, radiological and histomorphometric evaluation of immediate vs. non-immediate loading of a zirconia implant with surface treatment in a dog model
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2014
;
25
:
826
830
.
28
Delgado-Ruiz
RA,
Abboud
M,
Romanos
G,
Aguilar-Salvatierra
A,
Gomez-Moreno
G,
Calvo-Guirado
JL.
Peri-implant bone organization surrounding zirconia micro grooved surfaces circularly polarized light and confocal laser scanning microscopy study
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2015
;
26
:
1328
1337
.
29
Gredes
T,
Kubasiewicz-Ross
P,
Gedrange
T,
Dominiak
M,
Kunert-Keil
C.
Comparison of surface modified zirconia implants with commercially available zirconium and titanium implants: a histological study in pigs
.
Implant Dent
.
2014
;
23
:
502
507
.
30
Lee
BC,
Yeo
IS,
Kim
DJ,
Lee JB, Kim SH, Han JS. Bone formation around zirconia implants combined with rhBMP-2 gel in the canine mandible
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2013
;
24
:
1332
1338
.
31
Aboushelib
MN,
Salem
NA,
Taleb
AL,
El Moniem
NM.
Influence of surface nano-roughness on osseointegration of zirconia implants in rabbit femur heads using selective infiltration etching technique
.
J Oral Implantol
.
2013
;
39
:
583
590
.
32
Chung
SH,
Kim
HK,
Shon
WJ,
Park
YS.
Peri-implant bone formations around (Ti, Zr) O2-coated zirconia implants with different surface roughness
.
J Clin Periodontol
.
2013
;
40
:
404
411
.
33
Hoffmann
O,
Angelov
N,
Zafiropoulos
GG,
Andreana,
S.
Osseointegration of zirconia implants with different surface characteristics: an evaluation in rabbits
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2012
;
27
:
352
358
.
34
Mai
R,
Kunert-Keil
C,
Grafe
A,
Gedrange
T,
Lauer
G,
Dominiak
M,
Gredes
T.
Histological behaviour of zirconia implants: an experiment in rats
.
Ann Anat
.
2012
;
194
:
561
566
.
35
Möller
B,
Terheyden
H,
Acil
Y,
et al.
A comparison of biocompatibility and osseointegration of ceramic and titanium implants: an in vivo and in vitro study
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg
.
2012
;
41
:
638
645
.
36
Shin
D,
Blanchard
SB,
Ito
M,
Chu
TG.
Peripheral quantitative computer tomographic, histomorphometric, and removal torque analyses of two different non-coated implants in a rabbit model
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2011
;
22
:
242
250
.
37
Koch
FP,
Weng
D,
Krämer
S,
Biesterfeld
S,
Jahn-Eimermacher
A,
Wagner
W.
Osseointegration of one-piece zirconia implants compared with a titanium implant of identical design: a histomorphometric study in the dog
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2010
;
21
:
350
356
.
38
Schliephake
H,
Hefti
T,
Schlottig
F,
Gédet
P,
Staedt
H.
Mechanical anchorage and peri-implant bone formation of surface-modified zirconia in mini-pigs
.
J Clin Periodontol
.
2010
;
37
:
818
828
.
39
Gahlert
M,
Röhling
S,
Wieland
M,
Eichhorn
S,
Küchenhoff
H,
Kniha
H.
A comparison study of the osseointegration of zirconia and titanium dental implants: a biomechanical evaluation in the maxilla of pigs
.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res
.
2010
;
12
:
297
305
.
40
Lee
J,
Sieweke
JH,
Rodriguez
NA,
et al.
Evaluation of nano-technology-modified zirconia oral implants: a study in rabbits
.
J Clin Periodontol
.
2009
;
36
:
610
617
.
41
Bacchelli
B,
Gianluca
G,
Franchi
M,
et al.
Influence of a zirconia sandblasting treated surface on peri-implant bone healing: an experimental study in sheep
.
Acta Biomater
.
2009
;
5
:
2246
2257
.
42
Langhoff
JD,
Voelter
K,
Scharnweber
D,
et al.
Comparison of chemically and pharmaceutically modified titanium and zirconia implant surfaces in dentistry: a study in sheep
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg
.
2008
;
37
:
1125
1132
.
43
Hoffmann
O,
Angelov
N,
Gallez
F,
Jung
RE,
Weber
FE.
The zirconia implant–bone interface: a preliminary histologic evaluation in rabbits
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2008
;
23
:
691
695
.
44
Ferguson
SJ,
Langhoff
JD,
Voelter
K,
et al.
Biomechanical comparison of different surface modifications for dental implants
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2008
;
23
:
1037
1046
.
45
Ichikawa
Y,
Akagawa
Y,
Nikai
H,
Tsuru
H.
Tissue compatibility and stability of a new zirconia ceramic in vivo
.
J Prosthet Dent
.
1992
;
68
:
322
326
.
46
Caffesse
RG,
Nasjleti
CE,
Morrison
EC.
Sanchez
R.
Guided tissue regeneration: comparison of bio-absorbable and non-bioabsorbable membranes. Histologic and histometric study in dogs
.
J Periodontol
.
1994
;
65
:
583
591
.
47
Siddiqi
A,
Kieser
JA,
De-Silva
RK,
Thomson
WM,
Duncan,
WJ.
Soft and hard tissue response to zirconia versus titanium one-piece implants placed in alveolar and palatal sites: a randomized control trial
.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res
.
2015
;
17
:
483
496
.
48
Gottlow
J,
Dard
M,
Kjellson
F,
Obrecht
M,
Sennerby
L.
Evaluation of a new titanium– zirconium dental implant: a biomechanical and histological comparative study in the mini pig
.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res
.
2012
;
14
:
538
545
.
49
Chiapasco
M,
Casentini
P,
Zaniboni
M,
Corsi
E,
Anello
T.
Titanium–zirconium alloy narrow-diameter implants (Straumann Roxolid) for the rehabilitation of horizontally deficient edentulous ridges: prospective study on 18 consecutive patients
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2012
;
23
:
1136
1141
.
50
Sanon
C,
Chevalier
J,
Douillard
T,
et al.
Low temperature degradation and reliability of one-piece ceramic oral implants with a porous surface
.
Dent Mater
.
2013
;
29
:
389
397
.
51
Bächle
M,
Butz
F,
Hübner
U,
Bakalinis
E,
Kohal
RJ.
Behavior of CAL72 osteoblast-like cells cultured on zirconia ceramics with different surface topographies
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2007
;
18
:
53
59
.
52
Chevalier
J,
Loh
J,
Gremillard
L,
Meille
S,
Adolfson
E.
Low-temperature degradation in zirconia with a porous surface
.
Acta Biomater
.
2011
;
7
:
2986
2993
.
53
Daou
EE.
The zirconia ceramic: strengths and weaknesses
.
Open Dent J
.
2014
;
8
:
33
42
.
54
Camposilvan
E,
Marro
FG,
Mestra
A,
Anglada
M.
Enhanced reliability of yttria-stabilized zirconia for dental applications
.
Acta Biomaterialia
.
2015
;
17
:
36
46
.
55
Gahlert
M,
Burtscher
D,
Grunert
I,
Kniha
H,
Steinhauser
E.
Failure analysis of fractured dental zirconia implants
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2012
;
23
:
287
293
.
56
Osman
RB,
Swain
MV.
A critical review of dental implant materials with an emphasis on titanium versus zirconia
.
Materials
.
2015
;
8
:
932
958
.
57
Bozkaya
D,
Muftu
S,
Muftu
A.
Evaluation of load transfer characteristics of five different implants in compact bone at different load levels by finite elements analysis
.
J Prosthet Dent
.
2004
;
92
:
523
530
.
58
Osman
RB,
Ma
S,
Duncan
W,
De-Silva
RK,
Siddiqi
A,
Swain
MV.
Fractured zirconia implants and related implant designs: scanning electron microscopy analysis
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2013
;
24
:
592
597
.