Is zirconia a viable alternative to titanium for oral implant? A critical review

Karthik Sivaraman, Aditi Chopra, Aparna I. Narayan, Dhanasekar Balakrishnan

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

20 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: Titanium based implant systems, though considered as the gold standard for rehabilitation of edentulous spaces, have been criticized for many inherent flaws. The onset of hypersensitivity reactions, biocompatibility issues, and an unaesthetic gray hue have raised demands for more aesthetic and tissue compatible material for implant fabrication. Zirconia is emerging as a promising alternative to conventional Titanium based implant systems for oral rehabilitation with superior biological, aesthetics, mechanical and optical properties. This review aims to critically analyze and review the credibility of Zirconia implants as an alternative to Titanium for prosthetic rehabilitation. Study selection: The literature search for articles written in the English language in PubMed and Cochrane Library database from 1990 till December 2016. The following search terms were utilized for data search: “zirconia implants” NOT “abutment” “zirconia implants” AND “titanium implants” AND “osseointegration” “zirconia implants” AND compatibility. Results: The number of potential relevant articles selected were 47. All the human in vivo clinical, in vitro, animals’ studies were included and discussed under the following subheadings: Chemical composition, structure and phases; Physical and mechanical properties; Aesthetic and optical properties; Osseointegration and biocompatibility; Surface modifications; Peri-implant tissue compatibility, inflammation and soft tissue healing, and long-term prognosis. Conclusions: Zirconia implants are a promising alternative to titanium with a superior soft-tissue response, biocompatibility, and aesthetics with comparable osseointegration. However, further long-term longitudinal and comparative clinical trials are required to validate zirconia as a viable alternative to the titanium implant.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)121-133
Number of pages13
JournalJournal of Prosthodontic Research
Volume62
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 01-04-2018

Fingerprint

Titanium
Esthetics
Osseointegration
Mouth Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation
Histocompatibility
zirconium oxide
PubMed
Libraries
Hypersensitivity
Language
Clinical Trials
Databases
Inflammation

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Oral Surgery
  • Dentistry (miscellaneous)

Cite this

@article{90749738cd4d4d09ba160b1e43e1b82a,
title = "Is zirconia a viable alternative to titanium for oral implant? A critical review",
abstract = "Purpose: Titanium based implant systems, though considered as the gold standard for rehabilitation of edentulous spaces, have been criticized for many inherent flaws. The onset of hypersensitivity reactions, biocompatibility issues, and an unaesthetic gray hue have raised demands for more aesthetic and tissue compatible material for implant fabrication. Zirconia is emerging as a promising alternative to conventional Titanium based implant systems for oral rehabilitation with superior biological, aesthetics, mechanical and optical properties. This review aims to critically analyze and review the credibility of Zirconia implants as an alternative to Titanium for prosthetic rehabilitation. Study selection: The literature search for articles written in the English language in PubMed and Cochrane Library database from 1990 till December 2016. The following search terms were utilized for data search: “zirconia implants” NOT “abutment” “zirconia implants” AND “titanium implants” AND “osseointegration” “zirconia implants” AND compatibility. Results: The number of potential relevant articles selected were 47. All the human in vivo clinical, in vitro, animals’ studies were included and discussed under the following subheadings: Chemical composition, structure and phases; Physical and mechanical properties; Aesthetic and optical properties; Osseointegration and biocompatibility; Surface modifications; Peri-implant tissue compatibility, inflammation and soft tissue healing, and long-term prognosis. Conclusions: Zirconia implants are a promising alternative to titanium with a superior soft-tissue response, biocompatibility, and aesthetics with comparable osseointegration. However, further long-term longitudinal and comparative clinical trials are required to validate zirconia as a viable alternative to the titanium implant.",
author = "Karthik Sivaraman and Aditi Chopra and Narayan, {Aparna I.} and Dhanasekar Balakrishnan",
year = "2018",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jpor.2017.07.003",
language = "English",
volume = "62",
pages = "121--133",
journal = "Journal of Prosthodontic Research",
issn = "1883-1958",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "2",

}

Is zirconia a viable alternative to titanium for oral implant? A critical review. / Sivaraman, Karthik; Chopra, Aditi; Narayan, Aparna I.; Balakrishnan, Dhanasekar.

In: Journal of Prosthodontic Research, Vol. 62, No. 2, 01.04.2018, p. 121-133.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Is zirconia a viable alternative to titanium for oral implant? A critical review

AU - Sivaraman, Karthik

AU - Chopra, Aditi

AU - Narayan, Aparna I.

AU - Balakrishnan, Dhanasekar

PY - 2018/4/1

Y1 - 2018/4/1

N2 - Purpose: Titanium based implant systems, though considered as the gold standard for rehabilitation of edentulous spaces, have been criticized for many inherent flaws. The onset of hypersensitivity reactions, biocompatibility issues, and an unaesthetic gray hue have raised demands for more aesthetic and tissue compatible material for implant fabrication. Zirconia is emerging as a promising alternative to conventional Titanium based implant systems for oral rehabilitation with superior biological, aesthetics, mechanical and optical properties. This review aims to critically analyze and review the credibility of Zirconia implants as an alternative to Titanium for prosthetic rehabilitation. Study selection: The literature search for articles written in the English language in PubMed and Cochrane Library database from 1990 till December 2016. The following search terms were utilized for data search: “zirconia implants” NOT “abutment” “zirconia implants” AND “titanium implants” AND “osseointegration” “zirconia implants” AND compatibility. Results: The number of potential relevant articles selected were 47. All the human in vivo clinical, in vitro, animals’ studies were included and discussed under the following subheadings: Chemical composition, structure and phases; Physical and mechanical properties; Aesthetic and optical properties; Osseointegration and biocompatibility; Surface modifications; Peri-implant tissue compatibility, inflammation and soft tissue healing, and long-term prognosis. Conclusions: Zirconia implants are a promising alternative to titanium with a superior soft-tissue response, biocompatibility, and aesthetics with comparable osseointegration. However, further long-term longitudinal and comparative clinical trials are required to validate zirconia as a viable alternative to the titanium implant.

AB - Purpose: Titanium based implant systems, though considered as the gold standard for rehabilitation of edentulous spaces, have been criticized for many inherent flaws. The onset of hypersensitivity reactions, biocompatibility issues, and an unaesthetic gray hue have raised demands for more aesthetic and tissue compatible material for implant fabrication. Zirconia is emerging as a promising alternative to conventional Titanium based implant systems for oral rehabilitation with superior biological, aesthetics, mechanical and optical properties. This review aims to critically analyze and review the credibility of Zirconia implants as an alternative to Titanium for prosthetic rehabilitation. Study selection: The literature search for articles written in the English language in PubMed and Cochrane Library database from 1990 till December 2016. The following search terms were utilized for data search: “zirconia implants” NOT “abutment” “zirconia implants” AND “titanium implants” AND “osseointegration” “zirconia implants” AND compatibility. Results: The number of potential relevant articles selected were 47. All the human in vivo clinical, in vitro, animals’ studies were included and discussed under the following subheadings: Chemical composition, structure and phases; Physical and mechanical properties; Aesthetic and optical properties; Osseointegration and biocompatibility; Surface modifications; Peri-implant tissue compatibility, inflammation and soft tissue healing, and long-term prognosis. Conclusions: Zirconia implants are a promising alternative to titanium with a superior soft-tissue response, biocompatibility, and aesthetics with comparable osseointegration. However, further long-term longitudinal and comparative clinical trials are required to validate zirconia as a viable alternative to the titanium implant.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85027463084&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85027463084&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jpor.2017.07.003

DO - 10.1016/j.jpor.2017.07.003

M3 - Review article

C2 - 28827030

AN - SCOPUS:85027463084

VL - 62

SP - 121

EP - 133

JO - Journal of Prosthodontic Research

JF - Journal of Prosthodontic Research

SN - 1883-1958

IS - 2

ER -