Back to Journals » International Journal of Nanomedicine » Volume 11

Biomechanical and histological evaluation of the osseointegration capacity of two types of zirconia implant

Authors Han J, Hong G, Lin H, Shimizu Y, Wu Y, Zheng G, Zhang H, Sasaki K

Received 11 August 2016

Accepted for publication 27 October 2016

Published 7 December 2016 Volume 2016:11 Pages 6507—6516

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/IJN.S119519

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single anonymous peer review

Peer reviewer comments 2

Editor who approved publication: Dr Linlin Sun


Jian-min Han,1,2 Guang Hong,3 Hong Lin,1 Yoshinaka Shimizu,4 Yuhan Wu,2 Gang Zheng,1 Hongyu Zhang,5 Keiichi Sasaki2

1Department of Dental Materials, National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Beijing, People’s Republic of China; 2Division of Advanced Prosthetic Dentistry, 3Liaison Center for Innovative Dentistry, 4Department of Oral Pathology, Graduate School of Dentistry, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan; 5State Key Laboratory of Tribology, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing, People’s Republic of China


Abstract: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the biomechanical and histological behavior of a ceria-stabilized zirconia–alumina nanocomposite (NanoZr) in comparison with that of yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystalline (3Y-TZP) in Sprague Dawley rats. Cylindrical NanoZr and 3Y-TZP implants (diameter 1 mm, length 2 mm) were used. Implant-surface morphology and surface roughness were determined by scanning white-light interferometry and scanning electron microscopy, respectively. The cylindrical zirconia implants were placed at the distal edge of the femur of Sprague Dawley rats. At weeks 2, 4, and 8, the interfacial shear strength between implant and bone was measured by push-in test. Histological analysis was performed using hard-tissue sections. Bone–implant contact (BIC), the thickness of new bone around the implant within the bone marrow area, and osteoclast numbers were evaluated. The average surface roughness of 3Y-TZP (Sa 0.788 µm) was significantly higher than that of NanoZr (Sa 0.559 µm). The shear strengths of 3Y-TZP and NanoZr were similar at 2 weeks, but at 4 and 8 weeks the shear strength of NanoZr was higher than that of 3Y-TZP. The average BIC values within the bone marrow area for 3Y-TZP and NanoZr were 25.26% and 31.51% at 2 weeks, 46.78% and 38% at 4 weeks, and 47.88% and 56.81% at 8 weeks, respectively. The average BIC values within the cortical area were 38.86% and 58.42% at 2 weeks, 66.82% and 57.74% at 4 weeks, and 79.91% and 78.97% at 8 weeks, respectively. The mean BIC value did not differ significantly between the two zirconia materials at any time point. The NanoZr implants were biocompatible, capable of establishing close BIC, and may be preferred for metal-free dental implants.

Keywords: zirconia, dental implant, zirconia–alumina nanocomposite, push-in test, histomorphometry

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]