Microbiome of titanium and zirconia dental implants abutments

Nascimento, Cássio do; Pita, Murillo Sucena; Santos, Emerson de Souza; Monesi, Nádia; Pedrazzi, Vinícius; Albuquerque, Rubens Ferreira de; Ribeiro, Ricardo Faria

doi:10.1016/j.dental.2015.10.014

Cited by 95 publications

(89 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results showed no statistically significant differences in the DNA counts of Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans and P. gingivalis for the two types of abutments. However, these results were in contrast to two other studies . Nascimento et al.…”

Section: Biologic Datacontrasting

confidence: 98%

Zirconia dental implants: where are we now, and where are we heading?

Cionca¹,

Hashim²,

Mombelli³

2016

Periodontology 2000

216

192

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite decades of titanium as the gold standard in oral implantology, the search for alternatives has been growing. High esthetic standards and increasing incidence of titanium allergies, along with a rising demand for metal‐free reconstructions, have led to the proposal of ceramics as potential surrogates. Following numerous experimental studies, zirconium dioxide (zirconia) has earned its place as a potential substitute for titanium in implantology. Yet, despite zirconia's excellent biocompatibility and tissue integration, low affinity to plaque and favorable biomechanical properties, early failures were significantly higher for zirconia implants than for titanium implants. Technical failure as a result of fracture of the material is also a major concern. So far, zirconia implants have been mainly manufactured as one‐piece implant systems because of the material's limitations. Nevertheless, various two‐piece systems have been progressively emerging with promising results. Screw‐retained abutments are desirable but present a major technical challenge. Innovation and technical advances will undoubtedly lead to further improvement in the reliability and strength of zirconia implants, allowing for novel designs, connections and reconstructions. Additional clinical studies are required to identify all relevant technical and biological factors affecting implant success and patients’ satisfaction. However, the evidence for a final verdict is, at present, still incomplete.

show abstract

Section: Biologic Datacontrasting

confidence: 98%

Zirconia dental implants: where are we now, and where are we heading?

Cionca¹,

Hashim²,

Mombelli³

2016

Periodontology 2000

216

192

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…After screening title and abstract, 28 studies potentially fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Finally, eight studies in 10 publications were included in part 1, and 10 studies in 12 publications were included in part 2 . A flow diagram of this study is presented in Figure .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long‐Term Survival and Peri‐Implant Health of Titanium Implants with Zirconia Abutments: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Cao

Chen

et al. 2019

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To evaluate the long‐term implant survival rate of titanium implants with zirconia abutments, and the effects of implants with zirconia abutments on marginal bone loss (MBL) and pocket probing depth (PPD) compared with all‐titanium implants. Materials and Methods The searched electronic database included the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. Two types of studies were included: clinical studies reporting the survival rate of titanium implants with zirconia abutments with at least a mean/median 5‐year follow‐up, and clinical trials reporting the effects of implants with zirconia abutments on MBL and PPD compared with all‐titanium implants. Two reviewers screened and selected the records, assessed quality, and extracted data of included studies independently. Results This review included 16 studies from 18 publications. None of the comparative studies was assessed at a low risk of bias. The overall implant survival rate of implants with zirconia abutments was estimated to be 96% (confidence intervals [CIs] [94%, 98%], I2 = 0%). For the comparison between implants with zirconia abutments and all‐titanium implants, the results significantly favored implants with zirconia abutments (for MBL, mean difference [MD] = –0.09, CIs [–0.17, 0.00], p = 0.05, I2 = 40%; for PPD, MD = –0.18, CIs [–0.32, –0.05], p = 0.008, I2 = 0%). Zirconia abutments were favored more when the prosthesis was an implant‐supported overdenture rather than a single crown. Conclusions Implants with zirconia abutments may have an acceptable performance on peri‐implant health compared with all‐titanium implants; however, the implant survival rate of implants with zirconia abutments is slightly lower than all‐titanium implants in the long‐term follow‐up. Additional studies are needed to explain this dichotomy.

show abstract

“…Moreover, wettability/hydrophobicity and surface‐free energy also influence the formation of biofilm on implants . Moreover, as connections and prosthetic variables changed the microbiota around implants, as well as the peri‐implant region and healthy remaining teeth, our study analyzed only screw‐rehabilitated prostheses in periodontally healthy individuals. This approach allows an unbiased comparison between smokers and non‐smokers in relation to their peri‐implant microbiome.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Smoking habit modulates peri‐implant microbiome: A case‐control study

Pimentel

Fontes

Ribeiro

et al. 2018

J of Periodontal Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objective Smoking is a recognized risk factor for peri‐implant disease and leads to microbiological changes in mucositis and peri‐implantitis. However, there is no knowledge about the impact of smoking in healthy peri‐implant tissue. The aim of the study was to evaluate the microbiome in a peri‐implant environment in smokers with healthy peri‐implant conditions. Methods Peri‐implant biofilm was collected around single clinically healthy, screwed‐retained, teeth‐surrounded implants in 12 non‐smoker (NSMK) and 12 smoker (SMK) non‐periodontitis subjects (no bleeding and probing depth <4 mm). Bacterial DNA was isolated and 16S ribosomal RNA gene libraries were sequenced using pyrosequencing, targeting the V3‐V4 region. Datasets were processed using the Quantitative Insights into Microbial Ecology, Greengenes and the Human Oral Microbiome Database databases. Results An evident difference in the SMK peri‐implant microbiome was observed compared to the NSMK microbiome, with a large abundance of species, even with a healthy peri‐implant. The SMK core‐microbiome showed an abundance of Fusobacterium, Tannerella and Mogibacterium, while the NSMK core revealed an abundance of Actinomyces, Capnocytophaga and Streptococcus, genera that are usually related to periodontal health. The microbiome inter‐relationship was shown to be more inter‐generic in SMK then in NSMK, indicating different microbiome cohesion. Conclusion Smoking negatively affected the peri‐implant microbiome, leading to a disease‐associated state, even in clinically healthy individuals.

show abstract

Microbiome of titanium and zirconia dental implants abutments

Cited by 95 publications

References 20 publications

Zirconia dental implants: where are we now, and where are we heading?

Zirconia dental implants: where are we now, and where are we heading?

Long‐Term Survival and Peri‐Implant Health of Titanium Implants with Zirconia Abutments: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Smoking habit modulates peri‐implant microbiome: A case‐control study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About