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 Tools annual

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 monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the in vivo bone response to an additively manufactured zirconia surface compared to osseointegration into titanium (Ti) surfaces. Scanning electron microscopy, confocal laser scanning microscopy, and electron spectroscopy for chemical analysis were performed to assess the surface characteristics of implant specimens. For the in vivo evaluation, eight Ti implants and eight 3D-printed zirconia implants were used. The surface of four Ti implants was sandblasted, large-grit, and acid-etched (Ti-SLA group), while those of the other four Ti implants were left untreated (Ti-turned group). The zirconia implants had no further surface modification. Implants were placed into the tibiae of four rabbits; two received the Ti-SLA and zirconia implants and the other two received Ti-turned and zirconia implants. The experimental animals were sacrificed after four weeks of surgery, and the undecalcified microscopic slides were prepared. The bone-implant interface was analyzed by histomorphometry to evaluate the bone response. The degree of surface roughness showed that Ti-SLA was the highest, followed by zirconia and Ti-turned surfaces. The 3D-printed zirconia surface showed similar bone-to-implant contact to the Ti-turned surface, and Ti-SLA had the most bone-to-implant contact. The additively manufactured zirconia implant surface is biocompatible with respect to osseointegration compared to the commercially pure Ti surface.

Bone Response to Conventional Titanium Implants and New Zirconia Implants Produced by Additive Manufacturing