Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Mar 14;12(6):856.
doi: 10.3390/ma12060856.

Biomechanical and Histological Analysis of Titanium (Machined and Treated Surface) Versus Zirconia Implant Materials: An In Vivo Animal Study

Sergio Alexandre Gehrke  1   2   3 , Juan Carlos Prados-Frutos  4 , María Prados-Privado  5 , José Luis Calvo-Guirado  6 , Jaime Aramburú Júnior  7 , Leticia Pérez-Díaz  8 , Patricia Mazón  9 , Juan Manuel Aragoneses  10 , Piedad N De Aza  11
Affiliations

Biomechanical and Histological Analysis of Titanium (Machined and Treated Surface) Versus Zirconia Implant Materials: An In Vivo Animal Study

Sergio Alexandre Gehrke et al. Materials (Basel). .

Abstract

The aim of this study was to perform an in vivo histological comparative evaluation of bone formation around titanium (machined and treated surface) and zirconia implants. For the present study were used 50 commercially pure titanium implants grade IV, being that 25 implants with a machined surface (TiM group), 25 implants with a treated surface (TiT group) and, 25 implants were manufactured in pure zirconia (Zr group). The implants (n = 20 per group) were installed in the tibia of 10 rabbits. The implants distribution was randomized (n = 3 implants per tibia). Five implants of each group were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy and an optical laser profilometer for surface roughness characterization. Six weeks after the implantation, 10 implants for each group were removed in counter-torque for analysis of maximum torque value. The remaining samples were processed, included in historesin and cut to obtain non-decalcified slides for histomorphological analyses and histomorphometric measurement of the percentage of bone-implant contact (BIC%). Comparisons were made between the groups using a 5% level of significance (p < 0.05) to assess statistical differences. The results of removal torque values (mean ± standard deviation) showed for the TiM group 15.9 ± 4.18 N cm, for TiT group 27.9 ± 5.15 N cm and for Zr group 11.5 ± 2.92 N cm, with significant statistical difference between the groups (p < 0.0001). However, the BIC% presented similar values for all groups (35.4 ± 4.54 for TiM group, 37.8 ± 4.84 for TiT group and 34.0 ± 6.82 for Zr group), with no statistical differences (p = 0.2171). Within the limitations of the present study, the findings suggest that the quality of the new bone tissue formed around the titanium implants present a superior density (maturation) in comparison to the zirconia implants.

Keywords: bone healing; bone quality; osseointegration; titanium implants; zirconia implants.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Scanning Electronic Microscopy images of the implant surface of (a): TiM group, (b): TiT group and (c): Zr group, respectively. The increase of 1.500×.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Representative scheme of the parameters measurement (Sa, Ra and Z) on the surface samples and the arithmetic average roughness calculation of the Ra.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Representative image of the implant samples installed in an animal bone tibia.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Histological section of the implant in the cortical bone portion (magnification 40×) showing 2 zones determined for histomorphometric analysis, which the first zone (0–500 µm) and the second zone (500–1000 µm).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Graph of the removal torque dispersion values and statistical comparison of the groups. * Statistically difference (p < 0.05).
Figure 6
Figure 6
Images of the implants installed in the tibia of the three groups, (a) TiM group, (b) TiT and (c) Zr group.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Representative histological images of the TiM group shows the bone to implant contact and a great quantity of bone matrix formation (red staining) around the surface (green arrows).
Figure 8
Figure 8
Histological images of the TiT group shows the bone to implant contact and a great quantity of bone matrix formation (red staining) around the surface (green arrows).
Figure 9
Figure 9
Histological images of the Zr group shows the bone to implant contact and the presence of collagen fibers and less intense density of the bone tissue around the surface (green arrows).
Figure 10
Figure 10
Box-Plot graph of the BIC% values of both groups.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Kammermeier A., Rosentritt M., Behr M., Schneider-Feyrer S., Preis V. In vitro performance of one- and two-piece zirconia implant systems for an anterior application. J. Dent. 2016;53:94–101. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.08.004. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Han J., Hong G., Lin H., Shimizu Y., Wu Y., Zheng G., Zhang H., Sasaki K. Biomechanical and histological evaluation of the osseointegration capacity of two types of zirconia implant. Int. J. Nanomed. 2016;11:6507–6516. doi: 10.2147/IJN.S119519. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bosshardt D.D., Chappuis V., Buser D. Osseointegration of titanium, titanium alloy and zirconia dental implants: Current knowledge and open questions. Periodontol. 2000. 2017;73:22–40. doi: 10.1111/prd.12179. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chen Y.W., Moussi J., Drury J.L., Wataha J.C. Zirconia in biomedical applications. Expert Rev. Med. Devi. 2016;13:945–963. doi: 10.1080/17434440.2016.1230017. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rosentritt M., Hagemann A., Hahnel S., Behr M., Preis V. In vitro performance of zirconia and titanium implant/abutment systems for an anterior application. J. Dent. 2014;42:1019–1026. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2014.03.010. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources