Publications

Detailed Information

Biomechanical and histological behavior of zirconia implants. An experiment in the rat.

DC Field Value Language
dc.contributor.authorKohal, Ralf J.-
dc.contributor.authorWolkewitz, Martin-
dc.contributor.authorHinze, Marc-
dc.contributor.authorHan, Jung-Suk-
dc.contributor.authorBächle, Maria-
dc.contributor.authorButz, Frank-
dc.date.accessioned2010-08-03T07:26:02Z-
dc.date.available2010-08-03T07:26:02Z-
dc.date.issued2009-
dc.identifier.citationClin. Oral Impl. Res. 20:333–339en
dc.identifier.issn0905-7161-
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10371/68891-
dc.description.abstractObjective: This study aimed at evaluating the integration of zirconia implants in a rat
femur model.
Material and methods: Zirconia implants with two distinct surface topographies were
compared with titanium implants with similar topographies. Titanium and zirconia
implants were placed into the femurs of 42 male Sprague–Dawley rats. Four groups of
implants were utilized: machined zirconia implants, zirconia implants with a rough surface,
machined titanium implants, and titanium implants with an electrochemically roughened
surface. After a healing period of 28 days, the load-bearing capacity between the bone and
the implant surface was evaluated by a push-in test. Additionally, after a healing period of
14 and 28 days, respectively, bone tissue specimens containing the implants were processed
and histologically analyzed.
Results: The mean mineralized bone-to-implant contact showed the highest values after 14
and 28 days for the rough surfaces (titanium: 36%/45%; zirconia: 45%/59%). Also, the pushin
test showed higher values for the textured implant surfaces, with no statistical
significance between titanium (34 N) and zirconia (45.8 N).
Conclusions: Within the limits of the animal investigation presented, it was concluded that
all tested zirconia and titanium implant surfaces were biocompatible and osseoconductive.
The presented surface modification of zirconia implants showed no difference regarding
the histological and biomechanical results compared with an established electrochemically
modified titanium implant surface.
en
dc.description.sponsorshipThe test
implants were kindly provided by
Metoxit, Thayngen, Switzerland and
NobelBiocare, Gothenburg, Sweden.
There is no conflict of interest.
en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwellen
dc.subjectbiomechanical push-in testen
dc.subjectosseointegrationen
dc.subjectratsen
dc.subjecttitanium implanten
dc.subjectzirconia implanten
dc.titleBiomechanical and histological behavior of zirconia implants. An experiment in the rat.en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor한중석-
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01656.x-
Appears in Collections:
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.

Altmetrics

Item View & Download Count

  • mendeley

Items in S-Space are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Share