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.authorBachle, Maria-
dc.date.accessioned2013-01-22T06:42:39Z-
dc.date.available2013-01-22T06:42:39Z-
dc.date.issued2009-
dc.identifier.citationClinical Oral Implants Research; Vol.20, No.4, pp.333-339ko_KR
dc.identifier.issn0905-7161-
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10371/80974-
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 push-in 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. ⓒ 2009 John Wiley & Sons AS.ko_KR
dc.language.isoenko_KR
dc.publisherJohn Wiley & Sonsko_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.tc8-
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