204 posters,  28 sessions,  4 topics,  528 authors 

ePostersLive® by SciGen® Technologies S.A. All rights reserved.

One Piece Zirconia Implants for the Replacement of Single Units: A Case Series
Thursday, March 1 / 12:50-1:00pm / Monitor 2

Primary tabs


No votes yet


605 reads

One piece zirconia implants for the replacement of single units:
A case series

• titanium and its alloys are the most commonly used dental implant materials
• although very succesful, certain disadvantages have been described:
➡ Extensive peri-implant infections
➡ Association with foreign bodies (titanium, dental cement)
➡ Grey shimering of Ti
➡ Corrosion, metal abrasion
➡ increased concentration of titanium in the direct environment of
implants and in regional lymph nodes
➡ Ti allergy

Zirconia was introduced in the 1990’s
➡ orthopedics
➡ posts, frameworks, abutments for dental applications
• Less mucosa discoloration/ better color match to the soft tissue at natural teeth
than with titanium
• Significantly lower bacterial adhesion than with titanium surfaces
• Less inflammatory infiltration in the peri-implant tissue than with gold and titanium
• Favorable for the formation of epithelial attachments and mucosal obturation
• Significantly increased micro-circulation in peri-implant soft tissue compared to


Material and Methods

•13 healthy patients between 19 and 70 years old (mean 44.5), 6 females (46.15%) and
7 males (53.8%).
•A total of 18 Ceraroot © Zirconia implants were placed following the
recommendations of the manufacturer
•Cement-retained ceramic fixed restorations were delivered 4 months after implant
•6 months recall intervals for the first 2 years, and yearly after that.
•Peri-apical radiographs were taken at each follow up and crestal bone level changes
were calculated.
•Additional clinical parameters such as soft tissue health, including pocket-probing
depth, bleeding on probing, plaque index, and gingival index were also calculated



• follow up time was 1-4 years (mean 2.6 ± 0.21)
cumulative survival and success rates of 93.3% was found for one-piece zirconia dental implants.
• one implant failed prior to receiving the final restoration due to trauma in molar area
• Another implant presented with recession on the buccal aspect due to the pressure exerted by a removable partial
denture during the osseointegration phase
• No fracture of implants were reported during the follow up period


One-piece zirconia dental implants showed similar survival and success rates compared to traditional titanium dental implants after an observation period of 4 years



1. Steinemann SG (1998) Titanium-the material of choice? Periodontol 2000 17: 7-21.

2. Gahlert M, Gudehus T, Eichhorn S, Steinhauser E, Kniha H, et al. (2007) Biomechanical and histomorphometric comparison between zirconia implants with varying surface textures and titanium implant in the maxilla of miniature pigs. Clin Oral Implants Res 18: 662-668.

3. Steinemann SG (1998) Titanium-the material of choice? Periodontol 2000 17: 7-21.

4. Nordlund A, Zetterqvist L, Ode´n A (1989) A comparative experimental investigation in monkeys between three different implant materials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 18: 373-377.

5. Oliva J, Oliva X, Oliva JD (2007) One-year follow-up of first consecutive 100 zirconia dental implants in humans: a comparison of 2 different rough surfaces. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 22: 430-435.

6. Akagawa Y, Hosokawa R, Sato Y, Kamayama K (1998) Comparison between freestanding and tooth-connected partially stabilized zirconia implants after two years’ function in monkeys: a clinical and histologic study. J Prosthet Dent 80: 551-558.

7. Ozkurt Z (2011) Zirconia Dental Implants: A literature review. Journal of Oral Implantology 37: 367-376.


Enter Poster ID (e.gGoNextPreviousCurrent