Soft tissue response to zirconia and titanium implant abutments: an in vivo within‐subject comparison

Brakel, Ralph van; Meijer, G.J.; Verhoeven, J. W.; Jansen, John A.; Putter, C. de; Cune, Marco S.

doi:10.1111/j.1600-051x.2012.01931.x

Cited by 82 publications

(87 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Zirconia ceramics have been reported not to have potential toxic or genotoxic effects [171819] and to present satisfactory soft tissue responses [20]. Esthetic implant abutments must minimize or reduce plaque adhesion and possess light dynamic qualities comparable to natural teeth.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biocompatibility study of lithium disilicate and zirconium oxide ceramics for esthetic dental abutments

Brunot-Gohin

Duval

Verbeke

et al. 2016

J Periodontal Implant Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe increasing demand for esthetically pleasing results has contributed to the use of ceramics for dental implant abutments. The aim of this study was to compare the biological response of epithelial tissue cultivated on lithium disilicate (LS2) and zirconium oxide (ZrO2) ceramics. Understanding the relevant physicochemical and mechanical properties of these ceramics will help identify the optimal material for facilitating gingival wound closure.MethodsBoth biomaterials were prepared with 2 different surface treatments: raw and polished. Their physicochemical characteristics were analyzed by contact angle measurements, scanning white-light interferometry, and scanning electron microscopy. An organotypic culture was then performed using a chicken epithelium model to simulate peri-implant soft tissue. We measured the contact angle, hydrophobicity, and roughness of the materials as well as the tissue behavior at their surfaces (cell migration and cell adhesion).ResultsThe best cell migration was observed on ZrO2 ceramic. Cell adhesion was also drastically lower on the polished ZrO2 ceramic than on both the raw and polished LS2. Evaluating various surface topographies of LS2 showed that increasing surface roughness improved cell adhesion, leading to an increase of up to 13%.ConclusionsOur results demonstrate that a biomaterial, here LS2, can be modified using simple surface changes in order to finely modulate soft tissue adhesion. Strong adhesion at the abutment associated with weak migration assists in gingival wound healing. On the same material, polishing can reduce cell adhesion without drastically modifying cell migration. A comparison of LS2 and ZrO2 ceramic showed that LS2 was more conducive to creating varying tissue reactions. Our results can help dental surgeons to choose, especially for esthetic implant abutments, the most appropriate biomaterial as well as the most appropriate surface treatment to use in accordance with specific clinical dental applications.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biocompatibility study of lithium disilicate and zirconium oxide ceramics for esthetic dental abutments

Brunot-Gohin

Duval

Verbeke

et al. 2016

J Periodontal Implant Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies on the morphogenesis and morphology of the mucosa at implants in humans used block biopsies obtained from mini‐implants or from soft tissue dissection techniques from conventional or specially designed abutments . Tomasi et al .…”

Section: Dimension Of the Peri‐implant Mucosamentioning

confidence: 99%

Peri‐implant health

Araújo

Lindhe

2018

J Clinic Periodontology

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Y-TZP has been compared with Ti in in vivo study and peri-implant bone response was not apparently different 13) . Moreover, implant abutments, which have machined surfaces, showed no differences between Y-TZP and Ti with regard to qualitative histological features in peri-implant soft tissue 14) . Y-TZP surfaces showed significant reductions of bacteria, and this is important for the health of peri-implant soft tissues 9) .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hard and soft tissue responses to three different implant materials in a dog model

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to assess hard and soft tissue responses using three dental implants made of different materials. Implants made of titanium (Ti), yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystals (Y-TZP) and ceria partially stabilized zirconia/alumina nanocomposite (Ce-TZP/Al2O3) were used in a dog model. Five male beagles were sacrificed at three months after implantation, and harvested mandible were observed and analyzed. Histological observations were similar in all groups. There were no significant differences in any histomorphometric parameters. Our results suggested the possibility of Ce-TZP/Al2O3 as a dental implant material, similar to Ti and Y-TZP.

show abstract

Soft tissue response to zirconia and titanium implant abutments: an in vivo within‐subject comparison

Abstract: No differences in soft tissue health were seen in peri-implant mucosa adjacent to zirconia and titanium abutment surfaces.

Cited by 82 publications

References 36 publications

Biocompatibility study of lithium disilicate and zirconium oxide ceramics for esthetic dental abutments

Biocompatibility study of lithium disilicate and zirconium oxide ceramics for esthetic dental abutments

Peri‐implant health

Hard and soft tissue responses to three different implant materials in a dog model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About