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.authorButz, Frank-
dc.contributor.authorBaechle, Maria-
dc.date.accessioned2013-01-14T07:46:36Z-
dc.date.available2013-01-14T07:46:36Z-
dc.date.issued2009-04-
dc.identifier.citationCLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, Vol.20, No.4, pp.333-339ko_KR
dc.identifier.issn0905-7161-
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10371/80488-
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.
ko_KR
dc.description.sponsorshipThe test implants were kindly provided by Metoxit, Thayngen, Switzerland and NobelBiocare, Gothenburg, Sweden.-
dc.language.isoenko_KR
dc.publisherWILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INCko_KR
dc.subjectbiomechanical push-in testko_KR
dc.subjectosseointegrationko_KR
dc.subjecttitanium implantko_KR
dc.subjectzirconia implantko_KR
dc.subjectratsko_KR
dc.titleBiomechanical and histological behavior of zirconia implants: an experiment in the ratko_KR
dc.typeArticleko_KR
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor한중석-
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01656.x-
dc.citation.journaltitleCLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH-
dc.description.tc9-
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