Titanium and zirconium oxide implants in comparison (dental)

• Passivation through titanium oxide layer
• Marginal bone loss
• Pros and cons of titanium
• Inflammation through macrophage activation
• Zirconium oxide implants in clinical performance
• Bacteria and material particles as trigger for periimplantitis
• aMMP-8 and calprotectin as early markers of inflammation
• Tissue studies on zirconium oxide implants

Conclusion
Further systemic exposure to orally introduced metals, but also to other dental materials, can be a permanent inflammatory stimulus for the immune system. Even the reduction of oral metals and their negative effects through the considered use of modern high-performance ceramics can relieve the immune system. This also includes the preferred use of zirconium dioxide as an implant material and as a material in prosthetic rehabilitation.

In preclinical and clinical studies, zirconium oxide implants are characterized by good osseointegration, good material stability, good immunological and toxicological compatibility, good hard and soft tissue stability and optimum esthetics. Reversible screw-retained two-part implant systems allow an expansion of the prosthetic indication areas beyond single-tooth and bridge replacement and enable hybrid prosthetic replacement with telescopes and locators as connecting elements. For the evaluation of long-term success and associated biological complications beyond 10 years, corresponding scientific studies for zirconium oxide implants are still lacking.