Peri-implant bone formations around (Ti,Zr)O2-coated zirconia implants with different surface roughness

Authors

  • Shin Hye Chung,

    1. Department of Conservative Dentistry, Dental Research Institute and School of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Hong-Kyun Kim,

    1. Department of Oral Anatomy, Dental Research Institute and School of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Won-Jun Shon,

    1. Department of Conservative Dentistry, Dental Research Institute and School of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Young-Seok Park

    Corresponding author
    1. Department of Oral Anatomy, Dental Research Institute and School of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
    • Department of Conservative Dentistry, Dental Research Institute and School of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
    Search for more papers by this author

  • Conflict of interest and sources of funding statement

    The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests. This study was supported by Basic Science Research Programme through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (2012-001758).

Address:

Young-Seok Park

Dental Research Institute and School of Dentistry

Department of Oral Anatomy, Seoul National University

28, Yeongeuon-dong, Jongno-gu, Seoul 110-749

South Korea

E-mail: ayoayo7@snu.ac.kr

Abstract

Aim

The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the osseointegration in rabbit tibiae of smooth and roughened powder injection moulded (PIM) zirconia implants with or without (Ti,Zr)O2 surface coatings.

Material and Methods

Twenty-five rabbits received four types of external hex implants with identical geometry on the tibiae: PIM zirconia implants, roughened PIM zirconia implants, (Ti,Zr)O2-coated PIM zirconia implants and (Ti,Zr)O2-coated roughened PIM zirconia implants. The surface characteristics of the four types of implants were evaluated. Removal torque tests and histomorphometric analyses were performed.

Results

The (Ti,Zr)O2 coatings substantially changed the surface topography and chemical composition of the both type of PIM zirconia implants. There were statistically significant differences in the bone to implant contact ratios and removal torque values (RT) among the tested implant types (p < 0.001). The histological response favoured the coated surface at smooth PIM zirconia implants. The removal torque values favoured the rough surface whether coated or uncoated.

Conclusions

Within the limit of this study, the (Ti,Zr)O2 coated PIM zirconia implants, both smooth and rough, showed enhanced histological response (bone to implant contact) compared with uncoated ones. On the other hand, the mechanical anchorage (RT) was higher for rough surface implants, coated or uncoated.

Ancillary