Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The aim of this study was to assess surface characteristics, element composition, and surface roughness of five different commercially available dental zirconia implants. Five zirconia implants (Bredent whiteSKY™ (I1), Straumann® PURE Ceramic (I2), ceramic.implant vitaclinical (I3), Zeramex® (I4), Ceralog Monobloc M10 (I5)) were evaluated. The evaluation was performed by means of scanning electron microscopy (SEM), energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX), and confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM). The semi-quantitative element composition showed no significant impurity of any implant tested. Both the machined and the rough areas of the investigated implants were predominated by zirconium, oxygen, and carbon. Roughness values ( S a ) showed highest values for I2 and I5. The investigated zirconia implants showed surface characteristics and roughness values close to those of conventionally produced titanium implants, making them a promising alternative. However, zirconia implants have yet to prove themselves in clinical practice and clinical controlled trials.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Beger et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: