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
Review
. 2022 Mar 7;15(5):1979.
doi: 10.3390/ma15051979.

Endosseous Dental Implant Materials and Clinical Outcomes of Different Alloys: A Systematic Review

Luca Fiorillo  1   2   3 , Marco Cicciù  1 , Tolga Fikret Tozum  4 , Matteo Saccucci  5 , Cristiano Orlando  6 , Giovanni Luca Romano  7 , Cesare D'Amico  1 , Gabriele Cervino  1
Affiliations
Review

Endosseous Dental Implant Materials and Clinical Outcomes of Different Alloys: A Systematic Review

Luca Fiorillo et al. Materials (Basel). .

Abstract

In recent years, implantology has made significant progress, as it has now become a safe and predictable practice. The development of new geometries, primary and secondary, of new surfaces and alloys, has made this possible. The purpose of this review is to analyze the different alloys present on the market, such as that in zirconia, and evaluate their clinical differences with those most commonly used, such as those in grade IV titanium. The review, conducted on major scientific databases such as Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science and MDPI yielded a startling number of 305 results. After the application of the filters and the evaluation of the results in the review, only 10 Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) were included. Multiple outcomes were considered, such as Marginal Bone Level (MBL), Bleeding on Probing (BoP), Survival Rate, Success Rate and parameters related to aesthetic and prosthetic factors. There are currently no statistically significant differences between the use of zirconia implants and titanium implants, neither for fixed prosthetic restorations nor for overdenture restorations. Only the cases reported complain about the rigidity and, therefore, the possibility of fracture of the zirconium. Certainly the continuous improvement in these materials will ensure that they could be used safely while maintaining their high aesthetic performance.

Keywords: dental implant alloys; dental implants; dental materials; titanium dental implant; zirconia dental implant.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Schematized osseointegration phases over time (arrow).
Figure 2
Figure 2
PRISMA flow chart.
Figure 3
Figure 3
MBL average values over time in zirconia alloy dental implants vs. titanium alloy dental implants vs. zirconium–titanium alloy dental implants according to evaluated study average results. X axis: time in months; Y axis: millimeters of marginal bone resorption. “Linear” (Lineare) trend line defined for each value (dashed).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Brånemark P.I. Osseointegration and its experimental background. J. Prosthet. Dent. 1983;50:399–410. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(83)80101-2. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mumoli N., Busoni A., Cei M. A swallowed denture. Lancet. 2009;373:1890. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60307-X. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pihlstrom B.L., Michalowicz B.S., Johnson N.W. Periodontal diseases. Lancet. 2005;366:1809–1820. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67728-8. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Diesendorf M. The mystery of declining tooth decay. Nature. 1986;322:125–129. doi: 10.1038/322125a0. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Tsunoda A., Kanazawa H., Ishige T., Kishimoto S. A missing denture. Lancet. 2004;364:1884. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17444-8. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources