Custom-made root-analogue zirconia implants: A scoping ...download.xuebalib.com/2wtufVR25iLo.pdf ·...
Transcript of Custom-made root-analogue zirconia implants: A scoping ...download.xuebalib.com/2wtufVR25iLo.pdf ·...
Review Article
Custom-made root-analogue zirconia implants: A scoping review onmechanical and biological benefits
Miguel Pessanha-Andrade,1 Mariane B. Sordi,2 Bruno Henriques,3 Filipe S. Silva,3 Wim Teughels,4
J�ulio C. M. Souza 3
1Division of Oral Implantology, School of Dentistry, Universidade Fernando Pessoa (UFP), Porto, Portugal2Post-graduate Program in Dentistry (PPGO), Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC), Florian�opolis, Brazil3Center for Microelectromechanical Systems (CMEMS-UMinho), University of Minho, Campus Azur�em, Guimar~aes, Portugal4Department of Oral Health Sciences, University Hospitals Leuven, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Received 15 January 2018; revised 18 March 2018; accepted 9 April 2018
Published online 00 Month 2018 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.34147
Abstract: The aim of this study was to conduct a literature
review on the potential benefits of custom-made root-ana-
logue zirconia implants. A PubMed and ScienceDirect biblio-
graphical search was carried out from 1969 to 2017. The
increased interest in zirconia-based dental structures linked
to aesthetic and biological outcomes have been reported in
literature. Recent technological advances have focused on
novel strategies for modification of zirconia-based surfaces to
accelerate osseointegration. However, only a few studies
revealed mechanical and biological benefits of custom-made
root-analogue zirconia implants and therefore further studies
should investigate the influence of different design and sur-
face modification on the performance of such implants.
Custom-made root-analogue zirconia implants have become
a viable alternative to overcome limitations concerning stress
distribution, aesthetics, and peri-implantitis induced by bio-
films. However, further in vitro and in vivo studies on sur-
face–bone interactions and mechanical behavior of zirconia
should be evaluated to reduce clinical issues regarding
mechanical failures and late peri-implant bone loss. VC 2018
Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater 00B:
000–000, 2018.
Key Words: dental implant, zirconia, custom-made implant,
root-analogue
How to cite this article: Pessanha-Andrade M, Sordi MB, Henriques B, Silva FS, Teughels W, Souza JCM. 2018. Custom-maderoot-analogue zirconia implants: A scoping review on mechanical and biological benefits. J Biomed Mater Res Part B2018:00B:000–000.
INTRODUCTION
Dental implants are currently used to replace missingteeth.1–4 However, growing concerns regarding aesthetics,titanium hypersensitivity, and corrosion by gradual materialdegradation encourage further research into highly estheticand biocompatible alternatives.5–8 Nowadays, patients lookfor esthetic ceramic restorations. In response to such increas-ing demand, technical developments have led to the introduc-tion of improved ceramic-based structures for implant-supported prostheses.9 The demand for ceramic materialswith tooth-like colors10 and high biocompatibility9 is increas-ing at about 12% per year.11 Zirconia-based materials, one ofthe most commonly used ceramic materials, are increasinglyconsidered by the dental practitioner community due to its
optical and mechanical properties. Therefore, zirconia-basedimplants might have the potential to replace titaniumimplants in several clinical situations.12 Zirconia is a signifi-cantly proper material to peri-implant soft tissue appearanceand morphology than titanium. However, it is well known inthe literature that buccal soft tissue thickness is a confound-ing factor in the appearance.13–16
The main benefits of zirconia compared to titanium implantsinclude no metal aura in cases of deficiency of the buccal bonewall and/or thin mucosal biotype, corrosion resistance, andhypoallergenicity.17,18 The color of zirconia can vary dependingon the oxide content to mimic the color of natural teeth, whichis a significant advantage to overcome aesthetic issues oftitanium-based implant systems.19 Additionally, zirconia is a
Correspondence to: J. C. M. Souza; e-mail: [email protected] grant sponsor: Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cient�ıfico e Tecnol�ogico (CNPq); contract grant number: PVE/CAPES/CNPq/
400254/2014–0
Contract grant sponsor: Fundac~ao para Ciencia e Tecnologia (FCT); contract grant number: NORTE-01–0145-FEDER-000018
VC 2018 WILEY PERIODICALS, INC. 1
biologically inert material possessing high biocompatibility thatcan provide osseointegration.2–4 Zirconia-based materials can beconverted into the shape of the tooth root and placed in thesocket immediately after extraction. Thus, strength, biocompati-bility, and tooth-like color of zirconia are desirable features toreplace titanium-based implants.20,21 Nevertheless, zirconia hassome limitations linked to its high elastic modulus (at about240–260 GPa), hardness (at about 1.2 GPa), and ultralow chemi-cal reactivity. The elastic modulus of zirconia is significantlyhigher than that recorded on cortical bone (10–20 GPa) that canresult in stress shielding and peri-implant bone loss. The highhardness and chemical resistance is a limitation for surfacemodification procedure involving conventional grit-blasting andetching procedures. Furthermore, surface modifications on zir-conia by grinding and/or gritblasting must be avoided as theprocess severely affects the fracture strength of thematerial.10,11,14–18
Reports on the concept of replacing teeth by using custom-made root-analogue implants started in 1969. Nonetheless, theself-curing and heat processed polymethacrylate used to fabri-cate the tooth-analogue was encapsulated by soft tissue. Lundg-ren reintroduced the idea of root-analogue implants in 1992.23
Root-analogue zirconia implants have been developed to rees-tablish physiological peri-implant conditions, stress distributionfrom occlusal loading, and aesthetics. The design of the custom-made implant can maintain the stress distribution pattern inthe surrounding bone, due to the design mimicking the alveolarregion.12 However, the stress concentration at the implant-boneregion is still higher than that recorded on teeth-bone due tothe lack of periodontal ligament. The benefits of the root-analogue implants include uncomplicated immediate implantplacement, decreased number of surgeries, and minimal inva-sive approach.2,3,21,23–25 The absence of a microgap betweenimplant and abutment seem to be of benefit since there is non-retentive region for bacterial adherence.8 From a biologicalpoint of view, zirconia has demonstrated a low affinity to bio-film accumulation, small amounts of inflammatory infiltrateand good soft tissue integration, that might reduce the risk forperi-implant diseases.8,26 Nevertheless, root-analogue implantshave some limitations, being restricted to cases of extraction ofperiodontally healthy tooth with appropriate deep socket,atraumatic extraction, sufficient bone support, and absence ofperiapical pathologies.21 Since they are manufactured as one-piece or single-component implants, the surgical placementmay not always meet the prosthodontic requirements to correctdefects on positioning. Additionally, single-piece implants areimmediately exposed to masticatory forces and tonguepressure.8,21,27
In fact, several aspects must be elucidated to better under-stand the clinical use of this new and challenging rehabilita-tion therapy. Therefore, the aim of this study was to conduct ascoping review on the potential benefits of the use of custom-made root-analogue zirconia implants.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A PubMed and ScienceDirect bibliographical search was car-ried out from 1969 to 2017. The following search items were
explored: “zirconia” and “custom-made” and “dental implants,”zirconia and “root-analogue” and “dental implants”, “zirconia”and “anatomical” and “dental implants”, “zirconia” and “finiteelement” and “dental implants”, “zirconia” and “customized”and “dental implants”, “zirconia” and “mechanical properties”and “dental implants”, “zirconia” and “biomechanical” and“dental implants”. The eligibility inclusion criteria used for arti-cle search were: Meta-analysis; randomized controlled trials;prospective cohort studies; and retrospective cohort studies.
The literature selection accepted the following tests:Microbiological assays; physicochemical characterization;biomechanics by analytical finite elements tests; topographyby scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and atomic forcemicroscopy; stereoscopic pictures analysis; surface chemis-try characterization by X-ray techniques; histomorphometricanalysis; push-in tests; removal torque testing; light micros-copy computer-assisted analysis; ultrasonic wave characteri-zation; spectroscopy analysis; transmission electronmicroscopy analysis; resonance frequency analysis; electro-chemical and wear tests; and in vivo studies performed inanimals or humans under radiographic evaluation.
The title and abstract of the identified articles weregiven a preliminary evaluation to establish whether theymet the inclusion criteria. This evaluation was carried outby two researchers independently, following which a jointdiscussion was scheduled to select the relevant articles.Then, selected articles were entirely read and analyzed con-sidering the purpose of the study.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A total of 611 papers were retrieved by the search on theelectronic database. After reading the title and abstracts, 81were selected for full-test reading and then 59 were evalu-ated as relevant to the purpose of the present study. Theselection of studies is illustrated in Figure 1. The presentstudy assessed the relevant articles published in literatureon the biomechanical and biological benefits of custom-made zirconia implants. The results found in the selectedarticles showed significant enhancement in the stress distri-bution through custom-made root-analogue implants associ-ated to desirable aesthetic outcomes and low risks of peri-implantitis induced by bacterial accumulation. Basically, agood fit between an implant and the bone provided by aroot-analogue implant will raise implant dentistry to a newlevel of truly anatomic implants. Within the selected articles,significant factors highlighted on custom-made root-ana-logue implants are shown in Tables I and II. Key factorslinked to the placement, manufacturing, mechanical behav-ior, and surface conditions are discussed as follow.
Immediate custom-made root-analogue implantsAfter tooth removal, there is an alveolar bone resorptionthat results in loss of bone (buccal plate) and consequentlyloss of the soft tissue contours. This often leads to two dis-tinct complications: first, the use of prostheses supported ornot by implants results in an aesthetic issue due to unde-sired changes in soft tissue morphology; second, the bone
2 PESSANHA-ANDRADE ET AL. ROOT-ANALOGUE ZIRCONIA IMPLANTS
volume can decrease as such that the possibility to place anendosseous implant becomes compromised. Thus, it is cru-cial to preserve the alveolar process dimensions in extrac-tion sites.28 The major advantages of immediate implantplacement are the decrease in treatment time with fewersurgical interventions, overall cost reduction, alveolar boneresorption, and soft-tissue regression due to early functionalload (Table I).29,30 Nevertheless, immediate implant place-ment does not preclude physiological bone remodelingactivity after tooth extraction.31
The tooth extraction site can be slightly larger than thecustom-made implant diameter, resulting in gap between boneand implant in certain regions. The misfit in implant-bone con-tact can be related to crestal bone fracture during the toothextraction as well as on the custom-made surface design toachieve primary stability. This misfit with the extraction socket
requires the use of biomaterials for bone augmentation to pre-vent down-growth of connective tissue or epithelium betweenthe implant and socket.32 Botticelli et al.33 inspected the tissuehealing occurred adjacent to implants placed in bone siteswith a wide marginal defect. In these cases, the new bone for-mation in the test sites resulted not only in the elimination ofthe gap but also in the establishment of a high degree ofbone-to-implant contact (BIC) or osseointegration. Forinstance, the amount of mineralized bone found in the testsites (70.3–75.6%) was similar to that found in the controlsites (74.1%), although the quality of the bone filling the gapwas distinctly different. In the test site within the gap, mostthe bone grown in the test site was immature. Accordingly, agap of 0.5 mm between the bone and the implant candecrease the BIC success rate. Thus, root-shaped implantdesigns are proposed to reduce the gap between implant
FIGURE 1. Search strategy used in this study.
REVIEW ARTICLE
JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL MATERIALS RESEARCH B: APPLIED BIOMATERIALS | MONTH 2018 VOL 00B, ISSUE 00 3
TA
BLE
I.S
um
mary
of
Rele
van
tS
tud
ies
on
Str
ess
Dis
trib
uti
on
An
aly
zed
by
Fin
ite
Ele
men
tM
eth
od
Au
tho
rsP
urp
ose
Sam
ple
Siz
ean
dG
rou
ps
Ass
ess
men
tM
eth
od
Str
ess
Dis
trib
uti
on
(MP
a)
Ch
oi
et
al.
46
Evalu
ati
on
of
the
stre
sses
betw
een
Ti-
6A
l-4V
an
dP
S-Z
rOd
en
tal
imp
lan
tsd
uri
ng
clen
chin
g
Ti-
6A
l-4V
an
dP
S-Z
rO2
cylin
-d
rica
ld
en
tal
imp
lan
ts(3
.26
312
mm
)w
ere
pla
ced
inth
efi
rst
mo
lar
reg
ion
on
the
rig
ht
hem
iman
dib
le
Dry
hu
man
man
dib
leFin
ite
ele
men
tan
aly
sis
Ti6
Al4
V—
Ten
sile
stre
ss:
11.0
2,
com
pre
ssiv
est
ress
:12.3
9,
vo
nM
ises:
11.3
7
PS
-ZrO
2—
Ten
sile
stre
ss:
14,
com
pre
ssiv
est
ress
:15.3
,vo
nM
ises:
14.2
Fu
het
al.
51
An
aly
sis
of
stre
ssd
istr
ibu
tio
nat
the
bo
ne-i
mp
lan
tin
terf
ace
(BII)
inzi
rco
nia
an
dti
tan
ium
imp
lan
tsw
ith
dif
fere
nt
thre
ad
desi
gn
san
din
terf
ace
con
dit
ion
s
18
fin
ite
ele
men
tm
od
els
wit
htw
oim
pla
nt
mate
rials
(zir
co-
nia
an
dti
tan
ium
),th
ree
thre
ad
desi
gn
s(V
shap
e,
squ
are
an
dV
shap
ew
ith
two
pit
ches)
an
dth
ree
inte
rface
con
dit
ion
s(b
on
ded
,an
dco
nta
ctB
IIw
ith
fric
tio
nal
coeffi
cien
to
f0.4
an
d0.7
)
Ala
tera
lfo
rce
of
130
Nw
as
ap
plied
Dry
hu
man
sku
llfr
om
pre
mo
lar
tofi
rst
mo
lar
reg
ion
Fin
ite
ele
men
tan
aly
sis
Zir
con
ia(v
on
Mis
es)
Vsh
ap
e/b
on
ded
:co
rtic
al:
73.2
,m
ed
ula
r:5.2
Vsh
ap
e/0
.4:
cort
ical:
83.9
,m
ed
ula
r:9.6
Vsh
ap
e/0
.7:
cort
ical:
86.8
,m
ed
ula
r:8.7
Sq
uare
/bo
nd
ed
:co
rtic
al:
74.8
,m
ed
ula
r:5.3
Sq
uare
/0.4
:co
rtic
al:
94.8
,m
ed
ula
r:9.8
Sq
uare
/0.7
:co
rtic
al:
93.7
,m
ed
ula
r:8.6
Vsh
ap
etw
op
itch
es/
bo
nd
ed
:co
rtic
al:
63.9
,m
ed
ula
r:7.0
Vsh
ap
etw
op
itch
es/
bo
nd
ed
:co
rtic
al:
81.7
,m
ed
ula
r:11.1
Vsh
ap
etw
op
itch
es/
bo
nd
ed
:co
rtic
al:
88.0
,m
ed
ula
r:13.1
Tit
an
ium
(vo
nM
ises)
Vsh
ap
e/b
on
ded
:co
rtic
al:
94.8
,m
ed
ula
r:5.6
Vsh
ap
e/0
.4:
cort
ical:
104,
med
ula
r:8.5
Vsh
ap
e/0
.7:
cort
ical:
108,
med
ula
r:7.6
Sq
uare
/bo
nd
ed
:co
rtic
al:
93.8
,m
ed
ula
r:6.2
Sq
uare
/0.4
:co
rtic
al:
115.5
,m
ed
ula
r:8.2
Sq
uare
/0.7
:co
rtic
al:
116.5
,m
ed
ula
r:7.2
Vsh
ap
etw
op
itch
es/
bo
nd
ed
:co
rtic
al:
82.2
,m
ed
ula
r:7.5
Vsh
ap
etw
op
itch
es/
bo
nd
ed
:co
rtic
al:
95.0
,m
ed
ula
r:10.3
Vsh
ap
etw
op
itch
es/
bo
nd
ed
:co
rtic
al:
104.4
,m
ed
ula
r:12.0
Gu
ng
or
an
dY
ilm
az1
6E
valu
ati
on
of
the
vo
nM
ises
stre
sses
an
dth
eir
dis
trib
u-
tio
ns
on
zirc
on
iaan
dti
ta-
niu
mim
pla
nt-
sup
po
rted
,p
art
ial
fixed
den
tal
pro
sth
e-
ses
loca
ted
inth
ean
teri
or
maxilla
ryre
gio
n
Tw
o-p
iece
zirc
on
iaan
dti
ta-
niu
mim
pla
nts
(43
11
3
5m
m)
an
dp
rost
hese
sm
ad
efr
om
lith
ium
dis
ilic
ate
an
dzi
rco
nia
4m
od
els
were
gen
era
ted
:T
itan
-IP
S,
Tit
an
-Lava,
Zir
con
-IP
S,
an
dZ
irco
n-
Lava
Ob
liq
uely
(534
N)
an
dh
ori
zon
-ta
lly
(76.5
N)
load
sw
ere
ap
plied
Maxilla
rym
od
el
(typ
e3
bo
ne)
create
dth
rou
gh
com
pu
ted
tom
og
rap
hy
Fin
ite
ele
men
tan
aly
sis
Ho
rizo
nta
llo
ad
(vo
nM
ises)
Zir
con
-IP
S:
cort
ical:
18,
med
ula
r:1.5
,im
pla
nt/
ab
utm
en
t:56
Zir
con
-Lava:
cort
ical:
18,
med
ula
r:1.5
,im
pla
nt/
ab
utm
en
t:56
Tit
an
-IP
S:
cort
ical:
18,
med
ula
r:1.5
,im
pla
nt/
ab
utm
en
t:43
Tit
an
-Lava:
cort
ical:
18,
med
ula
r:1.5
,im
pla
nt/
ab
utm
en
t:43
Ob
liq
ue
load
(vo
nM
ises)
Zir
con
-IP
S:
cort
ical:
50,
med
ula
r:10,
imp
lan
t/ab
utm
en
t:200
Zir
con
-Lava:
cort
ical:
50,
med
ula
r:10,
imp
lan
t/ab
utm
en
t:200
Tit
an
-IP
S:
cort
ical:
50,
med
ula
r:8,
imp
lan
t/ab
utm
en
t:135
Tit
an
-Lava:
cort
ical:
45,
med
ula
r:10,
imp
lan
t/ab
utm
en
t:139
4 PESSANHA-ANDRADE ET AL. ROOT-ANALOGUE ZIRCONIA IMPLANTS
surface and socket walls leading to a prevention of bone loss.Nevertheless, custom-made root formed implants occupyingmost of the extraction socket promoted more pronouncedalveolar bone resorption than standard dental implants in apreclinical study in dogs.34
Kohal et al.35 showed the increase in coronal region vol-ume of the implant neck compensates the loss of peri-implant bone. Additionally, a root-analogue implant canovercome the misfit between implant diameter and alveolarextraction site once the surface design could be improved toachieve the primary stability. Lundgren et al.23 carried out astudy to characterize and evaluate the osseointegration ofroot-analogue implants. In that case, 88% root-analogueimplants were healed-in by contact between bone andimplant with a high degree of predictability. The studyreported that the misfit (gaps) between the bony walls ofthe tooth socket and the root-analogue implants should beavoided. Therefore, a good curettage of the remaining peri-odontal ligament should be done, in order to secureosseointegration of the analogue implant. Gaps located inthe marginal area, lead to the possibility of down-growth ofsupracrestal connective tissue.
Pirker and Kocher2 reported successful clinical use of amodified root-analogue zirconia implant for immediate sin-gle tooth replacement. A right maxillary premolar in 64-year-old patient was removed and a custom-made root-ana-logue roughened zirconia implant with macroretentions wasproduced and placed into the extraction socket 4 days later.The authors concluded that a good fit between implant andhost bed by additional retentions was an important factorto decrease bone resorption. Later, Pirker and Kocher3
reported two novel approaches for dental root replacementin humans and evaluated the use of zirconia root-analogueimplants prospectively in 18 patients. The clinical trial indi-cated that immediate implantation of a root-analogue replicaallows instantaneous support of soft tissue and limited func-tional load, resulting in socket preservation with minimalbone loss. The authors confirmed the need of macroreten-tions and implant diameter reduction next to the corticalbone to provide primary stability and excellent osseointe-gration of immediate root-analogue zirconia implant.
Pirker et al.4 described a successful immediate replace-ment of a two-rooted tooth with an individualized two-rooted zirconia implant. A 50-year-old female with chronicalapical periodontitits of the left mandibulary first molar wasextracted and substituted by a root-analogue implant. Theauthors reported several advantages of this type of implant.The similar topography of the extracted tooth root elimi-nates the need for conventional bone drills and other trau-matic preparatory procedures for implantation. Zirconiashowed high biocompatibility and strength required to be asuitable material for dental implants. The zirconia brittle-ness is not a major problem in dental root-analogueimplants since they are wide based with a diameter wellabove 3 mm. In addition, the design mimicking the previoustooth can be achieved by Computer Aided Designing (CAD)as illustrated in Figure F22.T
AB
LE
I.C
on
tin
ued
Au
tho
rsP
urp
ose
Sam
ple
Siz
ean
dG
rou
ps
Ass
ess
men
tM
eth
od
Str
ess
Dis
trib
uti
on
(MP
a)
An
ssari
Mo
inet
al.
54
Evalu
ati
on
of
the
infl
uen
ceo
ffi
ve
cust
om
roo
t-an
alo
gu
eim
pla
nt
desi
gn
so
nst
ress
dis
trib
uti
on
of
peri
-im
pla
nt
bo
ne
Fiv
ep
ress
-fit
desi
gn
mo
difi
ca-
tio
nm
od
els
were
desi
gn
ed
:“S
tan
dard
,”“P
rism
,”“Fin
s,”
“P
lug
,”an
d“B
ulb
s.”
Ob
liq
ue
(300
N)
an
dvert
ical
forc
e(1
50
N)
were
ap
plied
3D
surf
ace
mo
del
of
up
per
rig
ht
can
ine
roo
t-an
alo
gu
efr
om
the
CB
CT
data
of
pati
en
t;Fin
ite
ele
men
tan
aly
sis
Vert
ical
load
Sta
nd
ard
—vo
nM
ises:
252,
ten
sile
stre
ss:
241,
com
pre
ssiv
est
ress
:50
Pri
sm—
vo
nM
ises:
217,
ten
sile
stre
ss:
61,
com
-p
ress
ive
stre
ss:
246
Fin
s—vo
nM
ises:
123,
ten
sile
stre
ss:
60,
com
-p
ress
ive
stre
ss:
81
Plu
g—
vo
nM
ises:
82,
ten
sile
stre
ss:
44,
com
-p
ress
ive
stre
ss:
51
Bu
lbs—
Vo
nM
ises:
92,
ten
sile
stre
ss:
44,
com
-p
ress
ive
stre
ss:
57
Ob
liq
ue
load
Sta
nd
ard
—vo
nM
ises:
252,
ten
sile
stre
ss:
241,
com
pre
ssiv
est
ress
:50
Pri
sm—
vo
nM
ises:
202,
ten
sile
stre
ss:
59,
com
-p
ress
ive
stre
ss:
220
Fin
s—vo
nM
ises:
217,
ten
sile
stre
ss:
192,
com
-p
ress
ive
stre
ss:
64
Plu
g—
vo
nM
ises:
168,
ten
sile
stre
ss:
153,
com
-p
ress
ive
stre
ss:
94
Bu
lbs—
vo
nM
ises:
172,
ten
sile
stre
ss:
148,
com
pre
ssiv
est
ress
:89
REVIEW ARTICLE
JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL MATERIALS RESEARCH B: APPLIED BIOMATERIALS | MONTH 2018 VOL 00B, ISSUE 00 5
Bone and soft-tissue trauma are reduced by adaptingthe root to the extraction socket instead of adapting thebone to a preformed standardized implant.3
Manufacturing and placement of root-analogue implantThe manufacturing of custom-made root-analogue implantscan be achieved by Computer Aided Design/Computer AidedManufacturing technique (CAD/CAM)19 as well as on addi-tive manufacturing technology combined with cone beamcomputed tomography focusing on the tooth as illustratedin Figure 2. Currently, the widely applied system for fabrica-tion of three-dimensional (3D) zirconia parts is based oncomputer numerical control milling of an unsintered whitemonoblock and subsequent firing into a sintered high-strength ceramic. Three-dimensional-printing technology isfeasible to fabricate root-analogue zirconia implants leadingto a production free of cracks and pores. Also, that allowscustomization without the use of molds required for ordi-nary milling technique.25,36,37 The manufacturing of custom-made root-analogue implants has been reported before andafter extraction. On both cases, the root-form of the extrac-tion surgical site is preserved by minimizing trauma, leadingto a faster healing of the surrounding bone.32,38
In the cases that the fabrication of the custom-maderoot-analogue implant happens after extraction, the surgical
site is cleaned by curettage followed by sterile physiologicalsaline solution and then an iodonform-soacked cottomgauze is placed in the wound. The root can be laser-scanned after extraction and then, the root-analogue implantis produced by CAD/CAM.2 The root-analogue implant iscleaned in an ultrasonic bath containing 96% ethanol for 10min, packaged and sterilized in a steam sterilizer beforeplacement in the surgical site.2 After 1–8 days of the toothextraction, the iodoform cotton gauze is removed, and thealveolar socket curetted and flushed with sterile physiologicsaline solution.2–4,32,39 The custom-made root-analogueimplant may be placed into the socket by using finger pres-sure, following gentle tapping with a hammer and a mallet.Palpation and percussion is used to check primarystability.2–4,32,39
In the cases of manufacturing of custom-made root-ana-log implant before tooth extraction, a computed tomographyscan is obtained from the patient dentition. Such informa-tion is enough to provide a CAD model of the teeth whichare going to be extracted.12,40,41 In this case, the model isthen used to produce a root-mimicking design along withtwo main design features: functionally graded porosity andadvanced abutment design.12 Finally, the CAD model is usedto produce the implant by CAM or by electron beam meltingor by other additive manufacturing technique. The implant
FIGURE 2. Design and clinical application of a zirconia root-analogue dental implant. Courtesy of Dr. Wolfgang Pirker, Face your face Handels
Ges.m.b.h., www.bioimplant.at (Vienna, Austria).
6 PESSANHA-ANDRADE ET AL. ROOT-ANALOGUE ZIRCONIA IMPLANTS
undergoes post-manufacturing processing steps beforebeing sent to the dental office.40,41 Thus, on a clinical pointof view, the implantation is accomplished in one dental visit.The implant can be ready upon the initial visit of the patientwhere the dentist can carefully remove the damaged toothand insert the implant with minimal to non-surgical sitepreparation.12
Regarding the additive manufacturing technique, bulkproperties of custom-made root-analogue implants can betailored to improve stress distribution decreasing peri-implant bone loss, and to enhance osseointegration.42–45 Forinstance, an implant structure can be produced within agradual transition in chemical composition from a compactzirconia at the inner regions of the implants toward to abioactive and softer material on the outer region.42–44 Thebioactive materials such as hydroxyapatite enhance thebone healing while adjust the overall stiffness/strength ofthe implant considering the cortical and trabecular peri-implant bone elastic modulus.42–44 In fact, custom-madeimplants produced by Functionally Graded Materials (FGM)approach can avoid the stress shielding phenomenon andstimulate a physiological remodeling activity of trabecularperi-implant bone.42–45 A combination of materials anddesign relies heavily on obtaining a good balance betweenthe implant stiffness/strength and bone remodeling activity.Additive manufacturing technologies can provide a desirablevariation in stiffness from the coronal to the apical implantregion ends for different base materials within differenttopographical aspects.
Given the wide variety of individual oral conditions andclinical situations, custom-made dental implants can over-come the limitations of the available standard designs andthe patient’s oral conditions. Furthermore, rehabilitationtime could be reduced, presenting a promising prospectivefor implant dentistry.37
Mechanical and biomechanical assessment of materialsfor dental implantsA success-rate of a dental implant is determined by severalaspects related to the implant, surgery, prosthetic, andpatient conditions. The type of material used is also a keyfactor to the implant osseointegration and clinical success-rate. Commercially pure titanium (cpTi) is the most com-mon material used in the last 20 years, but zirconia hasgrowingly become a potential material in implant den-tistry.46 Zirconia-based materials have appeared in dentistryfor metal-free structures due to an excellent biocompatibil-ity, improved esthetic results, high flexural strength, fracturetoughness, and high chemical resistance.3,4,47
The finite element method (FEM) has become anincreasingly useful tool for the prediction of the effects ofstress on implants and the surrounding bone.48,49 FEM pro-vides an accurate analytical model of a dental implantessential to produce realistic solutions using appropriateengineering software. FEM can simulate the stress distribu-tion around implants and determine a proper design to dis-sipate the stresses from occlusal forces.50 Bone tissue isknown to remodel its structure in response to applied
stress. Variations in the internal state of stress in bonedetermine whether constructive or destructive bone remod-eling takes place. On the one hand, low stress levels arounda dental implant may result in atrophy like the loss of alveo-lar crest after the removal of natural teeth. In contrast,abnormally high stress concentrations in the supporting tis-sues can result in patient discomfort, pressure necrosis, andthe eventual failure of the implant system.46
Choi et al.46 evaluated the biomechanical behavior ofTi6Al4V and PS-ZrO2 dental implants inserted into thehuman mandible during clenching using a 3D anatomicallyrealistic finite element model. Ti6Al4V and PS-ZrO2 dentalimplants were modeled as cylindrical structure with a diam-eter of 5.26 mm and length of 12 mm, and placed in thefirst molar region on the right hemimandible. On Ti6Al4Vdental implants, the maximum tensile stress, compressivestress and von Mises stress values recorded were at 11.02,12.39, and 11.37 MPa, respectively. On PS-ZrO2, the maxi-mum tensile stress, compressive stress, and von Misesstress values recorded were at 14, 15.3, and 14.2 MPa,respectively. The results revealed an increase of 2–3% inthe tensile and compressive stress mean values while vonMises stress increased in 8% in the bone-to-implant inter-face when PS-ZrO2 dental implant was used instead of Ti-6Al-4V dental implants (Table I).
Fuh et al.51 investigated the effects of different threaddesigns on the bone around Yttria stabilized Tetragonal Zir-conia Polycrystal (YTZP) and cpTi implants. A total of 18finite element models comprising two implant materials(YTZP or titanium), three thread designs, and three interfaceconditions were assessed considering the stress distributionon bone tissue. In the immediately loaded implant, thestress was highly concentrated at one site of the peri-implant bone. Also, zirconia implant can reduce the bonestress in the crestal cortical region (Table I).
In a study by Gungor and Yilmaz,16 the purpose was toevaluate the distribution of stress through YTZP and cpTiimplant-supported-prostheses located in the anterior maxil-lary region. Two different implants composed of YTZP andcpTi were assessed considering the support of a three-crown partial fixed dental prostheses composed of lithiumdissilicate or YTZP. The study concluded that stress distribu-tion was lower around YTZP implants than around cpTiunder horizontal loading although similar stress values forYTZP and cpTi were reported for oblique loading (Table I).
In a study performed by Himmlov�a et al.,52 a mathemati-cal simulation of stress distribution was used to determineinfluence of length and diameter to dissipate stress. A FEMwas carried out to simulate masticatory forces. The resultshighlighted a decrease in stress of 31.5% for implants diam-eter at 4.2 mm. In conclusion, an increased implant diame-ter decreased the maximum von Mises equivalent stressaround implant neck more than for an increase in theimplant length, due to a more favorable distribution of thesimulated masticatory forces.
Mobilio et al.14 compared the stress in bone around zirco-nia and titanium implants on loading. An one-piece YTZPimplant and a replica of the same implant composed of cpTi
REVIEW ARTICLE
JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL MATERIALS RESEARCH B: APPLIED BIOMATERIALS | MONTH 2018 VOL 00B, ISSUE 00 7
were embedded in two self-curing acrylic resin blocks. Loadsof 50, 100, and 150 N, with orientations of 30, 45, and 60degree to the implant axis were applied. Strain under all load-ing conditions on both samples was measured. 3D virtual rep-licas of both implants were reproduced using the FEM. Bothimplants revealed different biomechanical behavior. Titaniumimplant revealed higher stress values on the cortical bonewhile the YTZP implant showed higher stress values on thetrabecular bone. The stress magnitude were similar in bonefor both implants in all cases even if the stiffness of YTZP wastwice higher than that of titanium. On the mechanical point ofview, YTZP was thus a feasible substitute for dental implants(Table I). Only a few studies reported the stress distributionfor root-analogue zirconia implants.53 Considering the vari-able design of root-analogue implants, there are several limi-tations by using FEM to evaluate the influence of stressdistribution.54 The studies have to be targeted to random cus-tom shapes or limited to a case follow-up.
In a clinical study, Anssari Moin et al.54 selected a rightupper human canine in a 64-years-old individual to create a3D surface model of a root-analogue implant. Based on thestandard triangulation language, five different (targeted)press-fit design root were built: nonmodified standard, tar-get press-fit prism, targeted press-fit fins, targeted press-fitplug and targeted press-fit bulbs. Two different loadingswere applied to stimulate anterior masticatory forces. Thestress mean levels caused by oblique loading were higherwhen compared to vertical loading. The study concludedthat the optimization of standard root design, preferablyfins or bulbs, would have a positive effect on stress distribu-tion and lower stress concentration on peri-implant bone(Table I).
Previous studies have evaluated the effect of cyclic load-ing ranging from 10 to 200 N on one-piece zirconiaimplants in different simulated oral conditions.55–57 Thecompressive strength of one-piece zirconia implants wasassessed after fatigue testing at 50,000 cyclic loading on600 N.55 Failure mode of one-piece zirconia implants wascharacterized by crack initiation mainly at the tensile bend-ing side55 as expected considering the ceramic nature of thespecimens. A previous study has reported an adverse effectof abutment preparation on the strength of one-piece zirco-nia implants after fatigue testing at 1 million cyclic loadingfrom 10 to 200 N.56 Fracture was not detected after fatiguetesting in such conditions. However, the strength of one-piece zirconia implants decreased from about 1164 N downto 953 N after abutment preparation.56 Another studyreported the decrease of strength of one-piece zirconiaimplants after abutment chamfer preparation and increasingloading cycles from 1.2 to 5 million at 98 N.57 The meanstrength of one-piece zirconia implants after 5 million cycleswas lower (at 1364 N) than that (2044 N) recorded after1.2 million cycles. Therefore, the mean strength of one-piecezirconia implants was negatively affected after abutmentpreparation revealing values at 967 N for 1.2 cyclic loadingand 884 N for 5 million cycles.57 In fact, the abutment prep-aration is often required to enhance prosthetic crown adhe-sion although that procedure can negatively affect the
mechanical behavior of zirconia structures. Such findingsalso revealed that the loading magnitude determine thefracture of zirconia implants since the risk of fracture is lowon occlusal loading at anterior teeth regions.
Zirconia surfaces for custom-made root-analogue dentalimplantsA main factor that strongly influences wound healing at theimplantation site is the morphology of the implant surface,which subsequently affects osseointegration.58 Several chemi-cal and physical methods have been used to modify implantsurfaces considering increase in roughness, wettability, andbioactivity.19,59 Indeed, studies have shown that implantswith rough surface have a higher resistance to removal torquewhen compared to smooth surface implants.12 Smooth sur-face implants are not generally used since such implantsreveal a lower contact area of interaction with bone tissue.60
Consequently, the clinical use of YTZP dental implants is lim-ited due to the manufacturing process of YTZP structuresinvolving a morphological enhancement of the surface asfound on titanium implants.61
There are two methods that can be used for modifyingsurface texture, which are classified as ablative or additive.Ablative methods consist in removing material from the sur-face while additive methods involve addition of materialonto the surface. Two ordinary methods are currently usedfor ablating titanium-based implants, namely grit blastingand acid etching.62,63 Additive techniques on titaniumimplants involve physical vapor deposition or electrochemi-cal methods to chemically modify the surface in a specificenvironment containing bioactive materials. Hanawa62 hasreported the functionalization of titanium surfaces by usingceramics or polymeric materials.
In a study performed by Langhoff et al., two mainapproaches for surface modifications on titanium and zirco-nia were assessed.64 At first, microroughness was achievedby gritblasting and acid-etching and, then bioactive coatingcomposed of calcium phosphate, bisphonate, and type-1 col-lagen were applied on the rough surface. Six different typesof dental implants within a core based on YTZP or titaniumwere tested for osseointegration. After two weeks, zirconia-based implants showed a higher BIC (77%) compared totitanium-based implants (57–61%) as seen in Table II. Anincrease in BIC was detected on the pharmacologically andchemically modified titanium implants.64
In a previous study, twelve custom-made titanium (con-trol group) and twelve custom-made YTZP implants (testgroup) were placed in the extraction sites in six monkeysafter five months of tooth extraction.65 Titanium implantsurfaces were grit-blasted with Al2O3 and then acid-etchedwith H2O2/HF. YTZP implants were only grit-blasted sinceacid etching cannot modify YTZP. After 5 months of loading,BIC was recorded around 72.9% for titanium and 67.4% forYTZP implants (Table II). In conclusion, the custom-madezirconia implants osseointegrated to the same extent ascustom-made titanium control implants.
A previous study investigated the modification of tita-nium and YTZP surfaces by an ablative method and
8 PESSANHA-ANDRADE ET AL. ROOT-ANALOGUE ZIRCONIA IMPLANTS
TA
BLE
II.
Su
mm
ary
of
Rele
van
tS
tud
ies
on
Bo
ne-t
o-I
mp
lan
tC
on
tact
Au
tho
rsP
urp
ose
Sam
ple
Siz
ean
dG
rou
ps
Ass
ess
men
tM
eth
od
sS
tud
yD
esi
gn
Fo
llo
w-u
pB
on
eIm
pla
nt
Co
nta
ct(B
IC)
Dep
pri
chet
al.
20
Evalu
ati
on
of
the
oss
eo
inte
gra
tio
no
fzi
r-co
nia
imp
lan
tsw
ith
the
mo
difi
ed
ab
lati
ve
surf
ace
24
zirc
on
iaim
pla
nts
wit
hm
od
ified
ab
lati
ve
surf
ace
s24
tita
niu
mim
pla
nts
wit
hm
od
ified
ab
lati
ve
surf
ace
s
SE
M1,
4,
or
12
weeks
Aft
er
4w
eek
inti
mate
con
tact
wit
hb
on
ece
lls
bo
tho
nti
tan
ium
an
dzi
rco
nia
imp
lan
tsu
rface
s
Aft
er
12
weeks
succ
ess
ful
oss
eo
inte
gra
tio
no
fth
ezi
rco
nia
as
well
on
tita
niu
mD
ep
pri
chet
al.
59
Co
mp
ari
son
of
the
oss
e-
ou
sh
ealin
go
fzi
rco
nia
imp
lan
tsw
ith
tita
niu
mim
pla
nts
24
scre
w-t
yp
ezi
rco
nia
imp
lan
tsw
ith
mo
difi
ed
aci
d-e
tch
ed
surf
ace
s24
scre
w-t
yp
eti
tan
ium
imp
lan
tsw
ith
aci
d-e
tch
ed
surf
ace
His
tom
orp
ho
-m
eti
cevalu
ati
on
1,
4,
an
d12
weeks
Aft
er
1w
eek
of
healin
g,
the
mean
BIC
was
at
35.5
%6
10.8
%fo
rth
ezi
rco
nia
an
d47.7
%6
9.1
for
the
tita
niu
mim
pla
nts
.A
fter
4w
eeks
insi
tu,
BIC
of
the
zirc
on
iaim
pla
nts
was
at
45.3
%6
15.7
an
d58.6
%6
9.5
for
the
tita
niu
mim
pla
ns.
Aft
er
12
weeks
the
BIC
valu
es
were
at
71.4
%6
71.8
for
the
zirc
on
iaim
pla
nts
an
d82.9
%6
10.7
for
the
tita
niu
mim
pla
nts
Lan
gh
off
et
al.
64
An
aly
sis
of
the
surf
ace
mo
difi
cati
on
san
dm
ate
rials
on
the
sam
eim
pla
nt
geo
metr
y
Six
typ
es
of
den
tal
imp
lan
ts
5ti
tan
ium
imp
lan
ts
1zi
rco
nia
imp
lan
t
Macr
osc
op
ic,
rad
iog
rap
hic
an
dh
isto
mo
r-p
ho
metr
icm
eth
od
s
2,
4,
an
d8
weeks
Aft
er
weeks
,B
ICw
as
at
57–6
1%
on
tita
niu
man
d77%
on
zirc
on
ia
Th
eB
ICin
crease
db
etw
een
2an
d4
weeks
.K
oh
al
et
al.
65
An
aly
sis
of
the
his
tolo
gi-
cal
beh
avio
ro
flo
ad
ed
zirc
on
iaim
pla
nts
inan
an
imal
mo
del
12
cust
om
-mad
eti
tan
ium
imp
lan
ts(c
on
tro
l-g
rou
p)
12
cust
om
-mad
ezi
rco
nia
imp
lan
ts(t
est
gro
up
)
Lig
ht
mic
rosc
op
e9
mo
nth
sB
ICw
as
at
72.9
%o
nti
tan
ium
imp
lan
tsan
d67.4
%fo
rzi
rco
nia
imp
lan
ts
REVIEW ARTICLE
JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL MATERIALS RESEARCH B: APPLIED BIOMATERIALS | MONTH 2018 VOL 00B, ISSUE 00 9
TA
BLE
II.
Co
nti
nu
ed
Au
tho
rsP
urp
ose
Sam
ple
Siz
ean
dG
rou
ps
Ass
ess
men
tM
eth
od
sS
tud
yD
esi
gn
Fo
llo
w-u
pB
on
eIm
pla
nt
Co
nta
ct(B
IC)
Han et
al.
67
An
aly
sis
of
the
bio
me-
chan
ical
an
dh
isto
log
i-ca
lb
eh
avio
r
Ceri
a-s
tab
iliz
ed
zirc
on
ia-
alu
min
an
an
oco
mp
o-
site
(Nan
oZ
r)in
com
-p
ari
son
wit
hth
at
of
ytt
ria-s
tab
iliz
ed
tetr
ag
o-
nal
zirc
on
iap
oly
cryst
al-
lin
e(3
Y-T
ZP
)
Sca
nn
ing
wh
ite-
lig
ht
inte
rfer-
om
etr
yan
dS
EM
Inviv
o(S
pra
gu
eD
aw
ley
rats
)
2,4
,an
d8
weeks
Bo
ne
marr
ow
:
Fo
r3Y
-TZ
Pan
dN
an
oZ
rh
ad
BIC
at
25.2
6an
d31.5
1%
for
2w
eeks
,46.7
8an
d38%
for
4w
eeks
,an
d47.8
8an
d56.8
1%
for
8w
eeks
,re
spect
ively
Co
rtic
al:
BIC
of
38.8
6an
d58.4
2%
for
2w
eeks
,66.8
2an
d57.7
4%
for
4w
eeks
,an
d79.9
1an
d78.9
7%
for
8w
eeks
Ko
hal
et
al.
68
Evalu
ati
on
of
the
inte
gra
-ti
on
of
zirc
no
nia
imp
lan
ts
4g
rou
ps
of
imp
lan
tsw
ere
uti
lize
d:
mach
ined
zirc
on
iaim
pla
nts
,zi
rco
nia
imp
lan
tsw
ith
aro
ug
hsu
rface
,m
ach
ined
tita
-n
ium
imp
lan
ts,
an
dti
ta-
niu
mim
pla
nts
wit
han
ele
ctro
chem
ically
rou
gh
-en
ed
surf
ace
His
tolo
gic
al
an
dh
isto
mo
r-p
ho
metr
ic
Inviv
o(r
at
fem
ur
mo
del)
14
an
d28
days
of
healin
gFo
r14
days
bo
ne
healin
g,
the
BIC
perc
en
tag
ew
as
at
23.2
%o
nm
-Ti,
30.9
%o
nm
-YT
Z36.4
%o
nT
iUn
ite
gro
up
an
d45.3
%o
nr-
YT
ZP
.A
fter
28
days,
the
bo
ne
toim
pla
nt
con
tact
incr
ease
do
nall
gro
up
s.B
ICp
erc
en
tag
efo
rm
-Ti
was
39.4
%,
46.6
%o
nm
-Y
TZ
P,
55.2
%o
nT
iUn
ite
gro
up
an
d59.4
%o
nr-
YT
ZP
Sale
met
al.
69
Evalu
ati
on
of
the
oss
eo
inte
gra
tio
no
ffu
sio
n-s
pu
ttere
dzi
rco
nia
imp
lan
tis
inco
mp
ari
son
wit
hsa
nd
-b
last
ed
,aci
d-e
tch
ed
tita
niu
mim
pla
nts
ina
bio
mech
an
ical
an
dh
is-
tom
orp
ho
metr
icst
ud
y
60
zirc
on
iaw
ere
man
ufa
ctu
red
.H
alf
rece
ived
fusi
on
spu
tter-
ing
surf
ace
treatm
en
t.S
tan
dart
Ti
imp
lan
tso
fth
esa
me
shap
ean
dd
imen
sio
ns
serv
ed
as
con
tro
l
His
tolo
gic
al
an
dh
isto
metr
ican
aly
ses
Inviv
o(N
ew
Zeala
nd
wh
ite
male
rab
bit
s)
4,
8,
an
d12
weeks
Fu
sio
nsp
utt
ere
dzi
rco
nia
wit
ha
BIC
of
69.6
6%
on
4w
eeks
,88.0
3%
at
8w
eeks
an
d89.0
9%
on
12
weeks
Tit
an
ium
wit
ha
BIC
of
62.8
3%
for
2w
eeks
,82.9
4%
for
8w
eeks
an
d86.7
7%
for
12
weeks
Co
ntr
ol
Zir
con
iaw
ith
aB
ICo
f56%
for
4w
eeks
,70.3
6%
for
8w
eeks
an
d74.7
6%
at
12
weeks
10 PESSANHA-ANDRADE ET AL. ROOT-ANALOGUE ZIRCONIA IMPLANTS
compared the BIC percentage to that on titanium.20 A totalof 24 YTZP and 24 titanium implants were treated by acid-etching procedure and placed into the tibia of 12 G€ottingenmini pigs. BIC was analyzed by SEM after 12 weeks. Onboth groups, a successful osseointegration was found, andsimilar BIC values were noted for YTZP and titaniumimplants (Table II). Moreover, no interposition of an interfa-cial connective tissue layer or foreign body reaction wasdetected in any specimen. Chahine et al. also compared theendosseous healing between YTZP and titanium implantsregarding roughness.12 On histomorphometric evaluation,there was an increase in BIC throughout the assessmentperiod for both YTZP and titanium implants. After 1 weekof healing, BIC percentages were recorded at 35.5610.8%for YTZP and 47.76 9.1% for titanium implants. After 4weeks in situ, BIC percentages for YTZP implants increasedto 45.3615.7% while 58.669.5% were recorded for tita-nium implants. After 12 weeks, BIC percentages increasedfor YTZP (71.467.8%) and titanium surfaces (82.9610.7%),as seen in Table II. Those BIC results are quite similar to theresults recorded in another study in minipigs.66
Han et al. evaluated the biomechanical and histologicalaspects of a ceria-stabilized zirconia-alumina nanocomposite(NanoZr) in comparison with that of YTZP in Sprague-Dawley rats.67 The average BIC percentage within the bonemarrow area for YTZP was at 25.26% while NanoZrOshowed a BIC at 31.51% after 2 weeks. After 4 weeks, BICwas at 38% for YTZP while 46.78% was recorded for Nano-ZrO. Finally, BIC was recorded at 47.88% for YTZP and at56.81% for NanoZrO after 8 weeks. On cortical bone, themean BIC percentage values were 38.86 and 58.42% for 2weeks, 66.82 and 57.74% for 4 weeks, and 79.91 and78.97% for 8 weeks, for YTZP and NanoZrO, respectively.Animal studies have shown that YTZP and pure titaniumhave similar BIC although the morphological aspects of thesurfaces play a significant role on the osseointegration pro-cess (Table II).
Two rough surfaces of titanium and YTZP were alsoassessed after placement in Sprague-Dawley rat femurmodel.68 Four groups of implants were tested: machinedYTZP (m-YTZP), rough YTZP (r-YTZP), machined titanium(m-Ti), and electrochemically roughned titanium (TiUnite)surfaces. For 14 days of bone healing, the BIC percentageswere at 23.2% for m-Ti, 30.9% for m-YTZP, 36.4% for TiUn-ite and 45.3% for r-YTZP. After 28 days, the BIC percentagesincreased for m-Ti at 39.4%, 46.6% on m-YTZP, 55.2% onTiUnite and 59.4% on r-YTZP. No significant differencescould be found within the groups after 28 days of healing(Table II).
Another previous study reported the osseointegration offusio-sputtered YTZP implants in comparison with titaniumimplants in a biomechanical and histomorphometric study.69
After 4 weeks of healing process, fusion-sputtered YTZPimplants demonstrated significantly higher BIC compared tothose of both titanium and control YTZP implants. Themean BIC percentage recorded on fusion-sputtered YTZPwas at 69.66% when compared to 62.83% for titanium and56.94% for YTZP implants. After 8 weeks, the BIC
percentages for fusio-sputtered YTZP implants remainedstatically higher than that for titanium and YTZP implants.After 12 weeks, both fusion-sputtered and titanium implantsdemonstrated comparable BIC percentages (Table II).
A good number of studies confirmed the osseointegra-tion of zirconia to be like or even better than titanium. Theresults show biological benefits in using zirconia implantsfor custom-made root-analogue implants. Such studies alsoshowed that zirconia performance can be highly dependenton surface preparation and every new surface modificationshould be tested regarding aging and fatigue before clinicaluse.47,70,71 Roughening the surface of machined zirconiaimplants enhances bone apposition and enhances the capa-bility to withstand shear stress. On balance, the osseointe-gration of zirconia implants is promising consideringaddictive manufacturing techniques.47 Such developmenthas been introduced in YTZP implants ranging from amicro- to a nanoscale level to enhance osseointegration.
CONCLUSIONS
The relevant articles analyzed in the present literaturereview reported significant findings on custom-made root-analogue zirconia implants. Within the literature review, themain outcomes from the studies on root-analogue zirconiaimplants can be drawn as follow:
� The time of dental implant placement is determinant onthe alveolar bone remodeling. Immediate root-analogueimplant might prevent a loss of alveolar bone volumewith maintenance of peri-implant soft tissues leading toan improved esthetic and functional prosthetic result;
� Zirconia-based materials have shown increased interestto replace titanium-based structures considering opticaland biological properties. The optical properties ofzirconia-based structures can mimic the color and trans-lucence while their chemical composition enhances thebiocompatibility to soft and bone tissues;
� Mechanical properties of zirconia-based materials areevaluated by in vitro tests to predict the long-termstrength of implant-supported prostheses. Regarding dif-ferent clinical conditions, finite element analysis can alsobe used to assess the biomechanics of custom-madeimplants related to several aspects such as materials,design, loading, and maxillofacial positioning of implants.Root-analogue implants could promote a proper distribu-tion of stresses trough the materials towards to the bone,what might decrease the early peri-implant bone loss;
� The design of the custom-made implant can maintain thestress distribution in the surrounding bone, due to thegeometrical mimicking of the alveolar region. Thecustom-made design can decrease the bone resorptiondue to stress shielding associated to peri-implant inflam-matory reactions. However, the stress distribution magni-tude is still high for peri-implant bone due to the lack ofperiodontal ligament;
� zirconia-based surfaces are currently studied to achievemorphological features that enhance the adsorption of
REVIEW ARTICLE
JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL MATERIALS RESEARCH B: APPLIED BIOMATERIALS | MONTH 2018 VOL 00B, ISSUE 00 11
proteins and then the migration of osteogenic cells. Themajor concern is based on the high chemical resistance ofzirconia-based surfaces, which cannot be modified byusual acid etching procedures. It should be highlightedthat the technological development of zirconia-basedmaterials can promote novel ways to modify root-analogue implant surfaces leading to an enhancement ofosseointegration. Further studies should be performed ondifferent modification techniques of root-analogue zirco-nia implants to validate the percentage of osseointegra-tion along the time of bone healing.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
No conflict of interest.
REFERENCES1. Nam J, Tokutomi H. Using zirconia based prosthesis in a
complete-mouth reconstruction treatment for worn dentition with
the altered vertical dimension of occlusion. J Prosthet Dent 2015;
113:81–85.
2. Pirker W, Kocher A. Immediate, non-submerged, root-analogue
zirconia implant in single tooth replacement. Int J Oral Maxillofac
Surg 2008;37:293–295.
3. Pirker W, Kocher A. Immediate, non-submerged, root-analogue
zirconia implants placed into single-rooted extraction sockets: 2-
year follow-up of a clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;
38:1127–1132.
4. Pirker W, Wiedemann D, Lidauer A, Kocher AA. Immediate, single
stage, truly anatomic zirconia implant in lower molar replace-
ment: A case report with 2.5 years follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac
Surg 2011;40:212–216.
5. Broggini N, McManus LM, Hermann JS, Medina R, Schenk RK,
Buser D, Cochran DL. Peri-implant inflammation defined by the
implant-abutment interface. J Dent Res 2006;85:473–478.
6. Apaza-Bedoya K, Tarce M, Benfatti CAM. Synergistic interactions
between corrosion and wear a titanium-based dental implant con-
nections: A scoping review. J Periodontal Res 2017;52:946–954.
7. Noronha Oliveira M, Schunemann WVH, Mathew MT, Henriques
B, Magini RS, Teughels W, Souza JCM. Can degradation products
released from dental implants affect peri-implant tissues?
J Periodontal Res. 2018;53:1–11.
8. Cionca N, Hashim D, Mombelli A. Zirconia dental implants: Where
are we now, and where are we heading? Periodontol 2000. 2017;
73:241–258.
9. Nayar S, Aruna U, Bhat WM. Enhanced aesthetics with all
ceramics restoration. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2015;7:282–284.
10. Manicone FP, Iommetti PR, Raffaelli L. An overview of zirconia
ceramics: Basic properties and clinical applications. J Dent 2007;
35:819–826.
11. Chevalier J. What future for zirconia as a biomaterial? Biomateri-
als 2006;27:535–543.
12. Chahine G, Smith P, Kovacevic R. Digital engineering of bio-
adaptable dental implants. In: Turkyilmaz I, editor. Implant Den-
tistry–A Rapidly Evolving Practice. InTech; 2011. pp 252–266.
13. Jung R, Sailer I, Hammerle CF. In vitro color changes of soft tis-
sues caused by restorative materials. Int J Periodont Rest Dent
2007;27:251–257.
14. Mobilio N, Stefanoni F, Contiero P, Mollica F, Catapano S. Experi-
mental and numeric stress analysis of titanium and zirconia one-
piece dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:135–
142.
15. Linkevicius T, Vaitelis J. The effect of zirconia or titanium as abut-
ment material on soft peri-implant tissues: a systematic review
and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Impl Res 2015;26:139–147.
16. Gungor MB, Yilmaz H. Evaluation of stress distributions occurring
on zirconia and titanium implant-supported prostheses: A three-
dimensional finite element analysis. J Prost Dent 2016;116:346–
355.
17. Van Dooren E, Calamita M, Calgaro M, et al. Mechanical, biologi-
cal and clinical aspects of zirconia implants. Eur J Esthet Dent
2012;7:396–417.
18. Vohra F, Al-Kheraif AA, Ab Ghani SM, Abu Hassan MI, Alnassar
T, Javed F. Crestal bone loss and peri-implant inflammatory
parameters around zirconia implants: A systematic review.
J Prosthet Dent 2015;114:351–357.
19. Mangano FG, Cirotti B, Sammons RL, Mangano C. Custom-made,
root-analogue direct laser metal forming implant: A case report.
Lasers Med Sci 2012;27:1241–1245.
20. Depprich R, Zipprich H, Ommerborn M, Mahn E, Lammers L,
Handschel J, Naujoks C, Wiesmann H-P, K€ubler NR, Meyer U.
Osseointegration of zirconia implants: an SEM observation of the
bone-implant interface. Head Face Med 2008;4:25.
21. Regish KM, Sharma D, Prithviraj DR. An overview of immediate
root analogue zirconia implants. J Oral Implantol 2013;39:225–233.
22. Andreiotelli M, Kohal RJ. Fracture strength of zirconia implants
after artificial aging. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2009;11:158–166.
23. Lundgren D, Rylander H, Anderssong M, Johansson C, Albrektsson
T. Healing-in of root analogue titanium implants placed in extraction
sockets. An experimental study in the beagle dog. Clin Oral Implants
Res 1992;3:136–143.
24. Mangano FG, De Franco M, Caprioglio A, et al. Immediate, non-
submerged, root-analogue direct laser metal sintering (dlms)
implants: A 1-year prospective study on 15 patients. Lasers Med
Sci 2014;29:1321–1328.
25. Anssari Moin D, Hassan B, Wismeijer D. A novel approach for cus-
tom three-dimensional printing of a zirconia root analogue implant
by digital light processing. Clin Oral Impl Res 2017;28:668–670.
26. Souza JCM, Mota RRC, Sordi MB, Passoni BB, Benfatti CAM,
Magini RS. Biofilm formation on different materials used for oral
rehabilitation. Braz Dent J 2016;27:141–147.
27. Payer M, Arnetzl V, Kirmeier R, Koller M, Arnetzl G, Jakse N.
Immediate provisional restoration of single-piece zirconia
implants: a prospective case series–results after 24 months of
clinical function. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24:569–575.
28. Camargo PM, Lekovic V, Weinlaender M, Klokkevold PR, Kenney
EB, Dimitrijevic B, Nedic M, Jancovic S, Orsini M. Influence of
bioactive glass on chances in alveolar process dimensions after
exodontias. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod
2000;90:581–586.
29. Schropp L, Wenzel A, Kostopoulos L, Karring T. Bone healing and
soft tissue contour changes following single-tooth extraction: a
clinical and radiographic 12-month prospective study. Int J Peri-
odontics Restorative Dent 2003;23:313–323.
30. Beagle JR. The immediate placement of endosseous dental implants
in fresh extraction sites. Dent Clin North Am 2006;50:375–389.
31. Chappuis V, Ara�ujo MG, Buser D. Clinical relevance of dimen-
sional bone and soft tissue alterations post-extraction in esthetic
sites. Periodontol 2000 2017;73:73–83.
32. Pirker W, Kocher A. Root analog zirconia implants: true anatomi-
cal design for molar replacement—A case report. Int J Periodon-
tics Restorative Dent 2011;31: 663–668.
33. Botticelli D, Berglundh T, Buser D, Lindhe J. The jumping dis-
tance revisited: An experimental study in the dog. Clin Oral
Implants Res 2003;14:35–42.
34. Caneva M, Salata LA, de Souza SS, et al. Hard tissue formation
adjacent to implants of various size and configuration immedi-
ately placed into extraction socket: an experimental study in
dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010;21:885–890.
35. Kohal R-J, Hurzeler MB, Mota LF, Klaus G, Caffesse RG, Strub JR.
Custom-made root analogue titanium implants placed into extrac-
tion sockets. An experimental study in monkeys. Clin Oral
Implants Res 1997;8:386–392.
36. Osman RB, van der Veen AJ, Huiberts D, Wismeijer D, Alharbi N.
3D-printing zirconia implants; a dream or a reality? An in-vitro
study evaluating the dimensional accuracy, surface topography
and mechanical properties of printed zirconia implant and discs.
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2017;75:521–528.
37. Chen J, Zhang Z, Chen X, Zhang C, Zhang G, Xu Z. Design and
manufacture of customized dental implants by using reverse
engineering and selective laser melting technology. J Prosthet
Dent 2014;112:1088–1095.
12 PESSANHA-ANDRADE ET AL. ROOT-ANALOGUE ZIRCONIA IMPLANTS
38. Misch CE, Suzuki JB, Misch-Dietsh FM, Bidez MaW. A positive
correlation between occlusal trauma and peri-implant bone loss:
Literature support. Implant Dent 2005;14:108–116.
39. Patankar A, Kshirsagar R, Patankar S, Pawar S. Immediate, non
submerged root analog zirconia implant in single rooted tooth
replacement: Case report with 2 years follow up. J Maxillofac
Oral Surg 2016;15:270–273
40. Chahine G, Atharifar H, Smith P, et al. Design optimization of a
customized dental implant manufactured via Electron Beam
MeltingVR . International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium,
Austin Texas; 2009.
41. Chahine G, Smith P, Kovacevic R. Application of structural optimi-
zation in modern rapid manufacturing. International Solid Free-
form Fabrication Symposium, Austin Texas; 2010.
42. Miranda G, Araujo A, Bartolomeu F, Buciumeanu M, Carvalho O,
Souza JCM, Silva FS, Henriques B. Design of Ti6Al4V-HA compo-
sites produced by hot pressing for biomedical applications. Mater
Des 2016;108:488–493.
43. Buciumeanu M, Araujo, Carvalho O, Miranda G, Souza JCM, Silva
FS, Henriques B. Study of the tribocorrosion behavior of
Ti6Al4V—HA biocomposites. Tribol Int 2017;107:7784
44. Lin D, Li Q, Li W, Zhou S, Swain MV. Design optimization of func-
tionally graded dental implant for bone remodeling. Composites
Part B: Eng 2009;40(7):668–675.
45. Madeira, Souza JCM, Fredel MC, Henriques B, Silva FS, Zhang Y.
Functionally graded nanostructured materials. In: Nanostructured
biomaterials for cranio-maxillofacial and oral applications. 1st edi-
tion. Elsevier.
46. Choi AH, Matinlinna JP, Ben-Nissan B. Finite element stress anal-
ysis of Ti-6Al-4V partially stabilized zirconia dental implant during
clenching. Acta Odontol Scand 2012;70:353–361.
47. Gahlert M, R€ohling S, Wieland M, Eichhorn S, K€uchenhoff H,
Kniha H. A comparison study of the osseointegration of
zirconia and titanium dental implants. A biomechanical evaluation
in the maxilla of pigs. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2010;12:297–
305.
48. Caglar A, Bal BT, Karakoca S, Three-dimensional finite element
analysis of titanium and yttrium-stabilized zirconium dioxide
abutments and implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26:
961–969.
49. Cheng Y-C, Lin D-H, Jiang C-P, Lin Y-M. Dental implant customi-
zation using numerical optimization design and 3-dimensional
printing fabrication of zirconia ceramic. Int J Numer Method
Biomed Eng 2017;33.
50. Van Staden RC, Guan H, Loo YC. Application of the finite element
method in dental implant research. Comput Methods Biomech
Biomed Eng 2006;9:257–270.
51. Fuh L-J, Hsu J-T, Huang H-L, Chen MYC, Shen Y-W. Biomechani-
cal investigation of thread designs and interface conditions of zir-
conia and titanium dental implants with bone: Three-dimensional
numeric analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28: 64–71.
52. Himmlov�a L, Dost�alov�a T, K�acovsk�y A, Konvic�kov�a S. Influence of
implant length and diameter on stress distribution: a finite ele-
ment analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2004;91:20–25.
53. Khandare KK, Jaju SB, Patil PG, et al. FEM analysis for stress dis-
tribution of root analogue zirconia dental implant: A review. Int J
Innov Res Sci Eng Tech 2013;2:2030–2034.
54. Anssari Moin D, Hassan B, Wismeijer D. A patient specific biome-
chanical analysis of custom root analogue implant designs on
alveolar bone stress: A finite element study. Int J Dent 2016:
8242535.
55. Silva NR, Coelho PG, Fernandes CA, Navarro JM, Dias RA,
Thompson VP. Relaibility of one-piece ceramic implant. J Biomed
Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2009;88(2):419–426
56. Kamel M, Vaidyanathan TK, Flinton R. Effect of abutment prepara-
tion and fatigue loading in a moist environment on the fracture
resistance of the one-iece zirconia dental implant. Int Oral Maxil-
lofac Implants 2017;32(3):533–540
57. Kohal RJ, Wolkewitz M, Tsakona A. The effects of cyclic loading
and preparation on the fracture strength of zirconium-dioxide
implants: An invitro investigation. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;
22(8):808–814.
58. Albrektsson T, Branemark P-I, Hansson H-A, Lindstr€om J.
Osseointegrated titanium implants. Requirements for ensuring a
long-lasting, direct bone-to-implant anchorage in mandible. Acta
Orthop Scand 1981;52:155–170.
59. Depprich R, Zipprich H, Ommerborn M, Naujoks C, Wiesmann H-
P, Kiattavorncharoen S, Lauer H-C, Meyer U, K€ubler NR,
Handschel J. Osseointegration of zirconia implants compared
with titanium: An in vivo study. Head Face Med 2009;4:30.
60. Puleo DA, Thomas MV. Implant surfaces. Dent Clin North Am
2006;50:323–338.
61. €Ozkurt Z, Kazazo�glu E. Zirconia dental implants: A literature
review. J Oral Implantol 2011;37:367–376.
62. Hanawa T. A comprehensive review of techniques for biofunc-
tionalization of titanium. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2011;41:263–
272.
63. Smeets R, Stadlinger B, Schwarz F, Beck-Broichsitter B, Jung O,
Precht C, Kloss F, Gr€obe A, Heiland M, Ebker T. Impact of dental
implant surface modifications on osseointegration. Biomed Res
Int 2016;6285620.
64. Langhoff JD, Voelter K, Scharnweber D, Schnabelrauch M,
Schlottig F, Hefti T, Kalchofner K, Nuss K, von Rechenberg B.Comparison of chemically and pharmaceutically modified tita-
nium and zirconia implant surfaces in dentistry: A study in a
sheep. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;37:1125–1132.
65. Kohal RJ, Weng D, B€achle M, Strub JR. Loaded custom-made zir-
conia and titanium implants show similar osseointegration: An
animal experiment. J Periodontol 2004;75:1262–1268.
66. Schliephake H, Hefti T, Schlottig F, G�edet P, Staedt H. Mechanical
anchorage and peri-implant bone formation of surface-modified
zirconia in minipigs. J Clin Periodontol 2010;37:818–828.
67. Han J-M, Hong G, Lin H, Shimizu Y, Wu Y, Zheng G, Zhang H,
Sasaki K. Biomechanical and histological evaluation of the
osseointegration capacity of two types of zirconia implant. Int J
Nanomedicine 2016;11:6507–6516.
68. Kohal RJ, Wolkewitz M, Hinze M, Han J-S, B€achle M, Butz F. Bio-
mechanical and histological behavior of zirconia implants: an
experiment in the rat. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20:333–339.
69. Salem NA, Abo Taleb AL, Aboushelib MN. Biomechanical and
histomorphometric evaluation of osseointegration of fusion-
sputtered zirconia implants. J Prosthodont 2013;22:261–267.
70. Sanon C, Chevalier J, Douillard T, Cattani-Lorente M, Scherrer
SS, Gremillard L. A new testing protocol for zirconia dental
implants. Dent Mater 2015;31:15–25.
71. Deeksha S, Regish KM, Anoop N, Prithviraj DR. A systematic
review of zirconia as an implant material. Indian J Dent Res 2012;
23:643–649.
REVIEW ARTICLE
JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL MATERIALS RESEARCH B: APPLIED BIOMATERIALS | MONTH 2018 VOL 00B, ISSUE 00 13
本文献由“学霸图书馆-文献云下载”收集自网络,仅供学习交流使用。
学霸图书馆(www.xuebalib.com)是一个“整合众多图书馆数据库资源,
提供一站式文献检索和下载服务”的24 小时在线不限IP
图书馆。
图书馆致力于便利、促进学习与科研,提供最强文献下载服务。
图书馆导航:
图书馆首页 文献云下载 图书馆入口 外文数据库大全 疑难文献辅助工具