We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
International Poster Journal of Dentistry and Oral Medicine



Forgotten password?


Int Poster J Dent Oral Med 19 (2017), No. 2     15. June 2017
3rd best poster presentation Int Poster J Dent Oral Med 19 (2017), No. 2  (15.06.2017)

Poster 1129, Language: English

Titanium or Zirconium?
Clinical Assessment of Primary Implant Stability
Tattan, Mustafa / Kokovic, Vladimir
Titanium and titanium alloys have long been the gold standard for dental implant therapy. This is owing to their excellent mechanical and physical properties and their incomparably well-documented clinical success. However, like all biomaterials, titanium and titanium alloys do have some drawbacks that can compromise the clinical success of implants. In this day and age, when speaking of clinical success, reproducibility of form and function is not all that is required, but also the reproducibility of aesthetics. That is why with the limitations of titanium in the aesthetics department, zirconia certainly makes a timely entrance into implant dentistry. Zirconium dioxide dental implants not only make an aesthetically pleasing alternative, studies have also shed light on their exceptionally superior mechanical properties, even being comparable to those of Titanium. Materials and methods: Forty patients requiring single tooth replacement in the posterior mandible and maxilla were randomly assigned to treatment with zirconium-dioxide (test) or titanium (control) dental implants. Forty-four implants (22 zirconium dioxide ∅ 4.0 length 8mm and 22 titanium with SLA surface ∅ 4.1 length 8mm) were analysed in this study. The implant stability quotient (ISQ) was measured immediately following implant insertion.
Results: Forty patients participated in this study. The mean primary implant stability (PIS) values in test and control groups were 65.02 ± 2.85 and 62.62 ± 4.12, respectively. No statistically significant differences were detected, where p<0.005, between the analysed groups. However, statistically significant differences were noted between the results of implants in the upper versus lower jaw.
Conclusion: The results of this pilot study depict the independence of PIS on the type of implant material. To confirm such a statement, studies of larger sample sizes must be performed. Additionally, a periodic comparison of implant stability changes during the healing phase between zirconium and titanium dental implants should be the focus of upcoming research.

Keywords: zirconium dental implants, titanium dental implants, primary implant stability

Poster Award: 3rd best poster presentation

8th Dental Facial Cosmetic International Conference
06.-07. November 2016