REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2022 | Volume
: 9 | Issue : 3 | Page : 206--210
Prospect of Zirconium as a Dental Implant: A Comprehensive Review
Sarfaraj Ansary1, Sajed Ali Molla2, Ziyauddin Seikh1, Shamim Haidar1,
1 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Aliah University, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
2 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Dr. R Ahmed Dental College and Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
Correspondence Address:
Shamim Haidar
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Aliah University, Kolkata - 700 156, West Bengal
India
Abstract
Titanium and its alloys are satisfying the demand of dental implant industry for a long. Due to the problems of titanium implants, such as corrosion, ion radiation to the human body, cytotoxicity, and possible esthetic limitations, researchers are always looking for novel implant materials. Recently, zirconia implants as a substitute of titanium implants are becoming popular in the implant sector because of its improved biocompatibility, low plaque affinity, and desirable mechanical properties. However, there are very few clinical studies available for its long-term success rate. The purpose of the study is to summarize and analyze the current data accessible for zirconia implants with respect to its different mechanical properties and clinical survival rates. The available information suggests that a zirconia implant might be considered as a good alternative of titanium in the dentistry industry. It also shows good biocompatibility, better mechanical property, and esthetically a better choice of the implant compared to titanium implants.
How to cite this article:
Ansary S, Molla SA, Seikh Z, Haidar S. Prospect of Zirconium as a Dental Implant: A Comprehensive Review.J Dent Res Rev 2022;9:206-210
|
How to cite this URL:
Ansary S, Molla SA, Seikh Z, Haidar S. Prospect of Zirconium as a Dental Implant: A Comprehensive Review. J Dent Res Rev [serial online] 2022 [cited 2023 Apr 1 ];9:206-210
Available from: https://www.jdrr.org/text.asp?2022/9/3/206/361138 |
Full Text
Introduction
Due to its outstanding biocompatibility and mechanical characteristics, commercially pure titanium (Ti) has long been the preferred material for dental implants.[1],[2] In addition, the metallic hue of Ti can give rise to esthetic issues.[2],[3] As a response, implant research has centered on developing implant material that is tooth colored and improves the cosmetic appearance of dental implants while also being extremely biocompatible and capable of withstanding the stresses present in the oral cavity. Aluminum oxide is a ceramic substance that has been utilized for dental implants.[4],[5],[6],[7] It osseointegrated successfully; however, due to its dismal survival rate, it was taken off the market.[7],[8],[9],[10] Electrizing side effects are also noticed in the case of the metallic implant (Ti-alloys) as it reacts with the aqueous fluid of the oral cavity.[11] Metal ions are regularly released into the oral cavity by titanium implants. These ions have the potential to interact with other biomolecules, causing hypersensitivity and autoimmune disease. As a result, increasing the rate of corrosion raises the risk of causing immunologic or toxic responses.[12],[13],[14] Due to these limitations, new ceramic implant technologies are being developed. Ceramics, on the other hand, are vulnerable to tensile and shear strain, and surface defects can lead to premature cracking. Such circumstances imply a greater probability of fracture.[14] Ceramics made with Zr having high strength have recently gained popularity as novel dental implant materials. In comparison to metallic implants, Zr-ceramics relatively release a very little amount of ion. Due to their superior flexural strength and fracture resilience, yttrium-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystals seem to outperform aluminum oxide for dental implants.[15],[16],[17]
The surface morphology and material properties of a biomaterial are important in osseointegration. Implant surface morphology is one important characteristic that impacts in wound recovery at the implantation site; according to AlBrektson et al.,[18] many physical and chemical surface changes have been devised to aid osseous healing. Application of bioactive coatings and micro-roughness optimization are two significant ways for enhancing surface characteristics. Clinical application of zirconia dental implants is limited as surface modifications are difficult to fabricate, and flawless surfaces of implanted parts are not suitable for osseointegration as it creates weak tissue contact.[13]
Even though Zr may be used as implant material, its nanoparticles are employed as coating on titanium implants too. To promote osseointegration, sandblasting with circular zirconia granules may be used as a different kind of surface treatment for titanium implants.[14],[19],[20],[21],[22] Zirconia looks to be a great material for dental implants because of its mechanical advantages and tooth-like color. Aside from that, a few mechanical and chemical difficulties have been observed.[23] The material does not function well in lower temperature or humid conditions, which is a major drawback of zirconia dental implants. When exposed to cold temperatures over extended periods of time, the material gradually changes its shape and resilience.[24],[25],[26],[27]
Mechanical damages may happen during the implant's surgical implantation[28] or after it has been functionally loaded.[23] All locations of significant stress concentration should be avoided due to the fragile nature of ceramics, which encompasses, but is not restricted to, thread layout variations. Keen, thick, and slender threads, also in interior line angles that are sharp, are locations of stress concentration that might increase the probability of implant failure.[23]
Mechanical Properties of Zirconium
The hardness of commercial yttria-stabilized zirconia is 1200 HV, density is near about 6.05 g/cm3, bend strength varies from 900 to 1200 MPa, compressive strength is 2000 MPa, Young's modulus is 210GPa, fracture toughness is 7–10 MPam1/2, and thermal expansion coefficient is 11 × 10−6 1/K. There are three main organizational patterns for zirconia: monoclinic (M), tetragonal (T), and cubic ©. At room temperature, pure zirconia is monoclinic and stable up to 1170°C. Above this degree, it changes into the tetragonal phase, then into the cubic phase which lasts until the melting temperature at 2370°C. The tetragonal phase returns to monoclinic upon cooling at temperatures between 100°C and 1070°C.[29]
Corrosion Resistance
The primary mechanism of aqueous corrosion in the case of dental implants is the ion releasing process, in which hydronium ions replace alkali ions of material from the solution. Yttria Stabilized Zirconia (Y-TZP) ceramics have a nearly complete tetragonal microstructure with very tiny grain sizes (<1 μm) and excellent chemical stability.[29] When exposed to a corrosive environment, the alkali ions are immobilized, giving it outstanding corrosion and wear resistance.[30] In an in vitro study by Milleding, with the presence of a solution of 4% aqueous acetic acid at 80°C temperature for 18 h and small changes on the Zr-implant surface have been recorded. It is possible that zirconia's better corrosion resistance is related to the existence of crystalline phases which are less susceptible to acid attack than the glass phase.[31]
Biocompatibility
Zirconia ceramics are chemically inert materials that have no erythrogenic, allergic, immunological, or toxic effects in connective tissues.[3],[32],[33],[34] Sterner et al. discovered Ti and alumina particles strongly induce tumor necrosis factor-α inflammatory signal whereas zirconia had no impact on the human monocytic cell line.[35] There were no local or systemic harmful effects when yttria-stabilized zirconia was implanted in animal bones.[36] Christel implanted zirconia (Y-TZP) and alumina pins inside rabbit femurs and found no difference in bone reactivity to the implants.[37] Many in vitro and in vivo studies proved improved biocompatibility of pure Y-TZP, which is completely free of radioactive materials.[38]
Esthetic Result
Dental implants constructed of zirconia are the potential substitute of titanium dental implants, according to Blaschke and Volz.[39],[40] Zirconia dental implants not only provide good esthetic benefits but also offer greater osseointegration and soft-tissue response than that of titanium implants. Due to its tooth-like hue, implants with zirconia have the ability to solve the cosmetic constraints associated with Ti-implants.[7] Under thin mucosa, zirconia implants cause less color change, according to spectrophotometer analysis.[41],[42] Crowns made from zirconia are more popular, and they do have certain benefits such as strength, tooth-like color, durability, and good biocompatibility than other materials. As per our clinical crown therapy, we found zirconia crown fittings require less tooth reduction. [Figure 1] shows the tooth-like color of zirconia crown.{Figure 1}
Osseointegration
Several studies have been conducted comparing the osseointegration of zirconia to titanium implants. The majority of studies concluded with less significant differences in the osseointegration effect between zirconia and titanium implants.[43],[44],[45] Depprich et al.[46] discovered a comparable adhesion of both implants to bone, as well as very structurally similar characteristics. Although titanium implants have a stronger primary cell adhesion and attachment, there was a greater proliferation of osteoblasts surrounding zirconia implants. Zirconia has a greater bone-implant contact than titanium, according to Schultze-Mosgau et al.[47],48],49],[50],[51] and Dubruille et al.[36] Gahlert et al.[43] found that submerged zirconia implants had higher peri-implant bone volume densities than Ti-implants.[45] [Table 1].{Table 1}
Conclusion
Based on the literature study, this article seeks to summarize the present scientific state of zirconia dental implants. Implant systems made of zirconia are a novel addition to dental implants and they might eventually replace titanium as a viable option, with greater soft-tissue bonding, esthetic and better biocompatibility as well as equivalent osseointegration. Further long-term, randomized trials in the clinic are required to justify the use of Zr-implants in ordinary clinical practice. Zirconia implants have a promising future as novel processing technologies (Powder metallurgy) and purifying processes are being developed.
Acknowledgment
The author would like to acknowledge the support of DST, Ministry of Science and Technology (Government of India) to carry out research work in the field of metallurgy on the topics of implant materials.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
References
| 1 | Smith DC. Dental implants: Materials and design considerations. Int J Prosthodont 1993;6:106-17. |
| 2 | Depprich R, Zipprich H, Ommerborn M, Naujoks C, Wiesmann HP, Kiattavorncharoen S, et al. Osseointegration of zirconia implants compared with titanium: An in vivo study. Head Face Med 2008;4:30. |
| 3 | Kohal RJ, Weng D, Bächle M, Strub JR. Loaded custom-made zirconia and titanium implants show similar osseointegration: An animal experiment. J Periodontol 2004;75:1262-8. |
| 4 | Oliva X, Oliva J, Oliva JD. Replacement of congenitally missing maxillary permanent canine with a zirconium oxide dental implant & crown. A case report from an ongoing study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;1:140-4. |
| 5 | De Wijs FL, Van Dongen RC, De Lange GL, De Putter C. Front tooth replacement with Tübingen (Frialit) implants. J Oral Rehabil 1994;21:11-26. |
| 6 | Schulte W. The intraosseous Al2O3 (Frialit) Tubingen implant. Developmental status after eight years (I-III). Quintessence Int 1984;15:1-39. |
| 7 | Oliva J, Oliva X, Oliva JD. One-year follow-up of first consecutive 100 zirconia dental implants in humans: A comparison of 2 different rough surfaces. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007;22:430-5. |
| 8 | Oliva J, Oliva X, Oliva JD. Ovoid zirconia implants: Anatomic design for premolar replacement. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2008;28:609-15. |
| 9 | Steflik DE, Lake FT, Sisk AL, Parr GR, Hanes PJ, Davis HC, et al. A comparative investigation in dogs: 2-year morphometric results of the dental implant-bone interface. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:15-25. |
| 10 | Berge TI, Grønningsaeter AG. Survival of single crystal sapphire implants supporting mandibular overdentures. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000;11:154-62. |
| 11 | Stejskal J, Stejskal VD. The role of metals in autoimmunity and the link to neuroendocrinology. Neuro Endocrinol Lett 1999;20:351-64. |
| 12 | Tschernitschek H, Borchers L, Geurtsen W. Nonalloyed titanium as a bioinert metal-a review. Quintessence Int 2005;36:523-30. |
| 13 | Valentine-Thon E, Schiwara HW. Validity of MELISA for metal sensitivity testing. Neuro Endocrinol Lett 2003;24:57-64. |
| 14 | Yamauchi R, Morita A, Tsuji T. Pacemaker dermatitis from titanium. Contact Dermatitis 2000;42:52-3. |
| 15 | Denry I, Kelly JR. State of the art of zirconia for dental applications. Dent Mater 2008;24:299-307. |
| 16 | Yilmaz H, Aydin C, Gul BE. Flexural strength and fracture toughness of dental core ceramics. J Prosthet Dent 2007;98:120-8. |
| 17 | Apratim A, Eachempati P, Krishnappa Salian KK, Singh V, Chhabra S, Shah S. Zirconia in dental implantology: A review. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2015;5:147-56. |
| 18 | Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: A review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1986;1:11–25. |
| 19 | Kohal RJ, Klaus G. A zirconia implant-crown system: A case report. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2004;24:147-53. |
| 20 | Andreiotelli M, Kohal RJ. Fracture strength of zirconia implants after artificial aging. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2009;11:158-66. |
| 21 | 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 Suppl 1:S13-20. |
| 22 | Piconi C, Maccauro G, Muratori F, Brach Del Prever E. Alumina and zirconia ceramics in joint replacements. J Appl Biomater Biomech 2003;1:19-32. |
| 23 | Zhang Y, Sailer I, Lawn BR. Fatigue of dental ceramics. J Dent 2013;41:1135-47. |
| 24 | Suresh A, Mayo MJ, Porter WD, Rawn CJ. Crystallite and grain-size-dependent phase transformations in yttria-doped zirconia. J Am Ceram 2003;86:360-2. |
| 25 | Hjerppe J, Vallittu PK, Fröberg K, Lassila LV. Effect of sintering time on biaxial strength of zirconium dioxide. Dent Mater 2009;25:166-71. |
| 26 | Christel P, Meunier A, Heller M, Torre JP, Peille CN. Mechanical properties and short-term in-vivo evaluation of yttrium-oxide-partially-stabilized zirconia. J Biomed Mater Res 1989;23:45-61. |
| 27 | De Aza AH, Chevalier J, Fantozzi G, Schehl M, Torrecillas R. Crack growth resistance of alumina, zirconia and zirconia toughened alumina ceramics for joint prostheses. Biomaterials 2002;23:937-45. |
| 28 | 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;24:592-7. |
| 29 | Glauser R, Sailer I, Wohlwend A, Studer S, Schibli M, Schärer P. Experimental zirconia abutments for implant-supported single-tooth restorations in esthetically demanding regions: 4-year results of a prospective clinical study. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:285-90. |
| 30 | Sterner T, Schütze N, Saxler G, Jakob F, Rader CP. Effects of clinically relevant alumina ceramic, zirconia ceramic and titanium particles of different sizes and concentrations on TNF-alpha release in a human macrophage cell line. Biomed Tech (Berl) 2004;49:340-4. |
| 31 | Ichikawa Y, Akagawa Y, Nikai H, Tsuru H. Tissue compatibility and stability of a new zirconia ceramic in vivo. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68:322-6. |
| 32 | Chai J, Chu FC, Chow TW, Liang BM. Chemical solubility and flexural strength of zirconia-based ceramics. Int J Prosthodont 2007;20:587-95. |
| 33 | Akagawa Y, Ichikawa Y, Nikai H, Tsuru H. Interface histology of unloaded and early loaded partially stabilized zirconia endosseous implant in initial bone healing. J Prosthet Dent 1993;69:599-604. |
| 34 | Akagawa Y, Hosokawa R, Sato Y, Kamayama K. Comparison between freestanding and tooth-connected partially stabilized zirconia implants after two years' function in monkeys: A clinical and histologic study. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:551-8. |
| 35 | Depprich R, Zipprich H, Ommerborn M, Mahn E, Lammers L, Handschel J, et al. Osseointegration of zirconia implants: An SEM observation of the bone-implant interface. Head Face Med 2008;4:25. |
| 36 | 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;14:271-7. |
| 37 | Scarano A, Di Carlo F, Quaranta M, Piattelli A. Bone response to zirconia ceramic implants: An experimental study in rabbits. J Oral Implantol 2003;29:8-12. |
| 38 | Porstendörfer J, Reineking A, Willert HC. Radiation risk estimation based on activity measurements of zirconium oxide implants. J Biomed Mater Res 1996;32:663-7. |
| 39 | Blaschke C, Volz U. Soft and hard tissue response to zirconium dioxide dental implants – A clinical study in man. Neuro Endocrinol Lett 2006;27:69-72. |
| 40 | Comisso I, Arias-Herrera S, Gupta S. Zirconium dioxide implants as an alternative to titanium: A systematic review. J Clin Exp Dent 2021;13:e511-9. |
| 41 | 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;25:336-44. |
| 42 | Cionca N, Müller N, Mombelli A. Two-piece zirconia implants supporting all-ceramic crowns: A prospective clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:413-8. |
| 43 | 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;20:1247-53. |
| 44 | 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;23:691-5. |
| 45 | Ahmad I. Yttrium-partially stabilized zirconium dioxide posts: An approach to restoring coronally compromised nonvital teeth. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1998;18:454-65. |
| 46 | Depprich R, Ommerborn M, Zipprich H, Naujoks C, Handschel J, Wiesmann HP, et al. Behavior of osteoblastic cells cultured on titanium and structured zirconia surfaces. Head Face Med 2008;4:29. |
| 47 | Schultze-Mosgau S, Schliephake H, Radespiel-Tröger M, Neukam FW. Osseointegration of endodontic endosseous cones: Zirconium oxide vs. titanium. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2000;89:91-8. |
| 48 | Garvie RC, Hannink RH, Pascoe RT. Ceramic steel? Nature 1975;258:703. |
| 49 | Green DJ, Hannink RH, Swain MV. Transformation Toughening of Ceramics. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press; 1989. |
| 50 | Piconi C, Maccauro G. Zirconia as a ceramic biomaterial. Biomaterials 1999;20:1-25. |
| 51 | Guazzato M, Albakry M, Swain MV, Ringer SP. Microstructure of alumina-and alumina/zirconia-glass infiltrated dental ceramics. Bioceramics 2003;15:879-82. |
|
