English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  The aim of this study was to assess surface characteristics, element composition, and surface roughness of five different commercially available dental zirconia implants.  Five zirconia implants (Bredent whiteSKY™ (I1), Straumann® PURE Ceramic (I2), ceramic.implant vitaclinical (I3), Zeramex® (I4), Ceralog Monobloc M10 (I5)) were evaluated.    Methods  The evaluation was performed by means of scanning electron microscopy (SEM), energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX), and confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM).    Results  The semi-quantitative element composition showed no significant impurity of any implant tested. Both the machined and the rough areas of the investigated implants were predominated by zirconium, oxygen, and carbon. Roughness values ( S  a ) showed highest values for I2 and I5.    Conclusions  The investigated zirconia implants showed surface characteristics and roughness values close to those of conventionally produced titanium implants, making them a promising alternative. However, zirconia implants have yet to prove themselves in clinical practice and clinical controlled trials.

In vitro surface characteristics and impurity analysis of five different commercially available dental zirconia implants