Premium
Soft and Hard Tissue Response to Zirconia versus Titanium One‐Piece Implants Placed in Alveolar and Palatal Sites: A Randomized Control Trial
Author(s) -
Siddiqi Allauddin,
Kieser Jules August,
De Silva Rohana Kumara,
Thomson William Murray,
Duncan Warwick John
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
clinical implant dentistry and related research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.338
H-Index - 85
eISSN - 1708-8208
pISSN - 1523-0899
DOI - 10.1111/cid.12159
Subject(s) - medicine , dentistry , implant , premolar , abutment , dental alveolus , soft tissue , randomized controlled trial , orthodontics , molar , surgery , civil engineering , engineering
Abstract Background Titanium (Ti) implants have been used in the last four decades to replace missing teeth. Alternatives to Ti such as zirconia (Zr) may offer aesthetic advantages and be more acceptable to patients and clinicians concerned about Ti allergy but must show equivalent biological acceptability to Ti. Purpose The research aimed to investigate soft and hard tissue response to Ti and Zr implants in edentulous patients. Materials and Methods The research included 24 participants ( T i = 12, Z r = 12) restored with one‐piece ball‐abutment implants to support overdentures. Participants received four maxillary implants (two in the premolar alveolus, one off center in the alveolar midline, and one wide‐diameter implant in the anterior median palate) and three mandibular implants (one in the midline and bilateral posterior implants). Results Success rates for both T i and Z r implants were low, 67.9% for all alveolar implants and a survival rate of 50.0% for the palatal implants. Only 11 (52.4%) of 21 palatal implants survived the follow‐up period. Peri‐implant health was equivalent for T i and Z r implants and showed no statistically significant changes from loading to the 1‐year follow‐up. Statistically significant differences were noted in radiographic bone level between Ti and Zr implants ( p = .02), with Z r showing greater bone loss. Conclusions Although the failure rates with the one‐piece Zr implants were higher than with the Ti ones, suggesting that the former's clinical usage as in this study cannot be recommended, it should be borne in mind that the fault may also lie with the novel prosthodontic design which was used.