Cargando…

Endosseous Dental Implant Materials and Clinical Outcomes of Different Alloys: A Systematic Review

In recent years, implantology has made significant progress, as it has now become a safe and predictable practice. The development of new geometries, primary and secondary, of new surfaces and alloys, has made this possible. The purpose of this review is to analyze the different alloys present on th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fiorillo, Luca, Cicciù, Marco, Tozum, Tolga Fikret, Saccucci, Matteo, Orlando, Cristiano, Romano, Giovanni Luca, D’Amico, Cesare, Cervino, Gabriele
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8911578/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35269211
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma15051979
_version_ 1784666850114666496
author Fiorillo, Luca
Cicciù, Marco
Tozum, Tolga Fikret
Saccucci, Matteo
Orlando, Cristiano
Romano, Giovanni Luca
D’Amico, Cesare
Cervino, Gabriele
author_facet Fiorillo, Luca
Cicciù, Marco
Tozum, Tolga Fikret
Saccucci, Matteo
Orlando, Cristiano
Romano, Giovanni Luca
D’Amico, Cesare
Cervino, Gabriele
author_sort Fiorillo, Luca
collection PubMed
description In recent years, implantology has made significant progress, as it has now become a safe and predictable practice. The development of new geometries, primary and secondary, of new surfaces and alloys, has made this possible. The purpose of this review is to analyze the different alloys present on the market, such as that in zirconia, and evaluate their clinical differences with those most commonly used, such as those in grade IV titanium. The review, conducted on major scientific databases such as Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science and MDPI yielded a startling number of 305 results. After the application of the filters and the evaluation of the results in the review, only 10 Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) were included. Multiple outcomes were considered, such as Marginal Bone Level (MBL), Bleeding on Probing (BoP), Survival Rate, Success Rate and parameters related to aesthetic and prosthetic factors. There are currently no statistically significant differences between the use of zirconia implants and titanium implants, neither for fixed prosthetic restorations nor for overdenture restorations. Only the cases reported complain about the rigidity and, therefore, the possibility of fracture of the zirconium. Certainly the continuous improvement in these materials will ensure that they could be used safely while maintaining their high aesthetic performance.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8911578
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89115782022-03-11 Endosseous Dental Implant Materials and Clinical Outcomes of Different Alloys: A Systematic Review Fiorillo, Luca Cicciù, Marco Tozum, Tolga Fikret Saccucci, Matteo Orlando, Cristiano Romano, Giovanni Luca D’Amico, Cesare Cervino, Gabriele Materials (Basel) Review In recent years, implantology has made significant progress, as it has now become a safe and predictable practice. The development of new geometries, primary and secondary, of new surfaces and alloys, has made this possible. The purpose of this review is to analyze the different alloys present on the market, such as that in zirconia, and evaluate their clinical differences with those most commonly used, such as those in grade IV titanium. The review, conducted on major scientific databases such as Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science and MDPI yielded a startling number of 305 results. After the application of the filters and the evaluation of the results in the review, only 10 Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) were included. Multiple outcomes were considered, such as Marginal Bone Level (MBL), Bleeding on Probing (BoP), Survival Rate, Success Rate and parameters related to aesthetic and prosthetic factors. There are currently no statistically significant differences between the use of zirconia implants and titanium implants, neither for fixed prosthetic restorations nor for overdenture restorations. Only the cases reported complain about the rigidity and, therefore, the possibility of fracture of the zirconium. Certainly the continuous improvement in these materials will ensure that they could be used safely while maintaining their high aesthetic performance. MDPI 2022-03-07 /pmc/articles/PMC8911578/ /pubmed/35269211 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma15051979 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Review
Fiorillo, Luca
Cicciù, Marco
Tozum, Tolga Fikret
Saccucci, Matteo
Orlando, Cristiano
Romano, Giovanni Luca
D’Amico, Cesare
Cervino, Gabriele
Endosseous Dental Implant Materials and Clinical Outcomes of Different Alloys: A Systematic Review
title Endosseous Dental Implant Materials and Clinical Outcomes of Different Alloys: A Systematic Review
title_full Endosseous Dental Implant Materials and Clinical Outcomes of Different Alloys: A Systematic Review
title_fullStr Endosseous Dental Implant Materials and Clinical Outcomes of Different Alloys: A Systematic Review
title_full_unstemmed Endosseous Dental Implant Materials and Clinical Outcomes of Different Alloys: A Systematic Review
title_short Endosseous Dental Implant Materials and Clinical Outcomes of Different Alloys: A Systematic Review
title_sort endosseous dental implant materials and clinical outcomes of different alloys: a systematic review
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8911578/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35269211
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma15051979
work_keys_str_mv AT fiorilloluca endosseousdentalimplantmaterialsandclinicaloutcomesofdifferentalloysasystematicreview
AT cicciumarco endosseousdentalimplantmaterialsandclinicaloutcomesofdifferentalloysasystematicreview
AT tozumtolgafikret endosseousdentalimplantmaterialsandclinicaloutcomesofdifferentalloysasystematicreview
AT saccuccimatteo endosseousdentalimplantmaterialsandclinicaloutcomesofdifferentalloysasystematicreview
AT orlandocristiano endosseousdentalimplantmaterialsandclinicaloutcomesofdifferentalloysasystematicreview
AT romanogiovanniluca endosseousdentalimplantmaterialsandclinicaloutcomesofdifferentalloysasystematicreview
AT damicocesare endosseousdentalimplantmaterialsandclinicaloutcomesofdifferentalloysasystematicreview
AT cervinogabriele endosseousdentalimplantmaterialsandclinicaloutcomesofdifferentalloysasystematicreview