METHODS: Twenty patients with two adjacent missing posterior teeth were recruited. Patients were assigned equally and randomly into two groups; Bicon(®) (6 or 8 mm) and Ankylos(®) (8 mm) implants. A two-stage surgical approach and single crowns were used for implant placement and loading. Outcomes included peri-implant clinical parameters, implant stability (Periotest values; PTVs) and peri-implant bone changes, which were assessed at baseline, 2, 6 and 12 months post-loading.
RESULTS: No implant loss was encountered up to 12 months post-loading. No significant difference in the clinical or radiographic parameters was observed except for PTVs (p < 0.05) that was lower in Ankylos(®) implants.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of short dental implants was associated with excellent 12 months clinical and radiographic outcomes. Ankylos(®) and Bicon(®) implants demonstrated similar peri-implant soft tissue and alveolar bone changes. However, Ankylos(®) implants demonstrated better implant stability at all evaluation intervals.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixmaster dies were duplicated from the prepared maxillary first premolar tooth using nonprecious metal alloy (Wiron 99). Ten copings of 0.6 mm thickness were fabricated from each type of ceramic, for a total of thirty copings. Two master dies were used for each group, and each of them was used to lute five copings. All groups were cemented with resin luting cement Panavia F according to manufacturer's instructions and received a static load of 5 kg during cementation. After 24 hours of distilled water storage at 37 degrees C, the copings were vertically compressed using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min.
RESULTS: The results of the present study showed the following mean loads at fracture: Turkom-Cera (2184 +/- 164 N), In-Ceram (2042 +/- 200 N), and Procera AllCeram (1954 +/- 211 N). ANOVA and Scheffe's post hoc test showed that the mean load at fracture of Turkom-Cera was significantly different from Procera AllCeram (p < 0.05). Scheffe's post hoc test showed no significant difference between the mean load at fracture of Turkom-Cera and In-Ceram or between the mean load at fracture of In-Ceram and Procera AllCeram.
CONCLUSION: Because Turkom-Cera demonstrated equal to or higher loads at fracture than currently accepted all-ceramic materials, it would seem to be acceptable for fabrication of anterior and posterior ceramic crowns.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate crestal bone loss (CBL) around zirconia dental implants and clinical periimplant inflammatory parameters.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The focus question addressed was, "Do zirconia implants maintain crestal bone levels and periimplant soft tissue health?" Databases were searched for articles from 1977 through September 2014 with different combinations of the following MeSH terms: "dental implants," "zirconium," "alveolar bone loss," "periodontal attachment loss," "periodontal pocket," "periodontal index." Letters to the editor, case reports, commentaries, review articles, and articles published in languages other than English were excluded.
RESULTS: Thirteen clinical studies were included. In 8 of the studies, the CBL around zirconia implants was comparable between baseline and follow-up. In the other 5 studies, the CBL around zirconia implants was significantly higher at follow-up. Among the studies that used titanium implants as controls, 2 studies showed significantly higher CBL around zirconia implants, and in 1 study, the CBL around zirconia and titanium implants was comparable. The reported implant survival rates for zirconia implants ranged between 67.6% and 100%. Eleven studies selectively reported the periimplant inflammatory parameters.
CONCLUSIONS: Because of the variations in study design and methodology, it was difficult to reach a consensus regarding the efficacy of zirconia implants in maintaining crestal bone levels and periimplant soft tissue health.