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

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, Peop...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Han J, Hong G, Lin H, Shimizu Y, Wu Y, Zheng G, Zhang H, Sasaki K
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Dove Medical Press 2016
Materias:	Zirconia Dental implant Zirconia/alumina nanocomposite Push-in test Histomorphometry Medicine (General) R5-920
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/b72fe03ee11641d5bb2556f88764aa32
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:b72fe03ee11641d5bb2556f88764aa32
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:b72fe03ee11641d5bb2556f88764aa322021-12-02T06:37:59ZBiomechanical and histological evaluation of the osseointegration capacity of two types of zirconia implant1178-2013https://doaj.org/article/b72fe03ee11641d5bb2556f88764aa322016-12-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.dovepress.com/biomechanical-and-histological-evaluation-of-the-osseointegration-capa-peer-reviewed-article-IJNhttps://doaj.org/toc/1178-2013Jian-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, histomorphometryHan JHong GLin HShimizu YWu YZheng GZhang HSasaki KDove Medical PressarticleZirconiaDental implantZirconia/alumina nanocompositePush-in testHistomorphometryMedicine (General)R5-920ENInternational Journal of Nanomedicine, Vol Volume 11, Pp 6507-6516 (2016)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Zirconia Dental implant Zirconia/alumina nanocomposite Push-in test Histomorphometry Medicine (General) R5-920
spellingShingle	Zirconia Dental implant Zirconia/alumina nanocomposite Push-in test Histomorphometry Medicine (General) R5-920 Han J Hong G Lin H Shimizu Y Wu Y Zheng G Zhang H Sasaki K Biomechanical and histological evaluation of the osseointegration capacity of two types of zirconia implant
description	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
format	article
author	Han J Hong G Lin H Shimizu Y Wu Y Zheng G Zhang H Sasaki K
author_facet	Han J Hong G Lin H Shimizu Y Wu Y Zheng G Zhang H Sasaki K
author_sort	Han J
title	Biomechanical and histological evaluation of the osseointegration capacity of two types of zirconia implant
title_short	Biomechanical and histological evaluation of the osseointegration capacity of two types of zirconia implant
title_full	Biomechanical and histological evaluation of the osseointegration capacity of two types of zirconia implant
title_fullStr	Biomechanical and histological evaluation of the osseointegration capacity of two types of zirconia implant
title_full_unstemmed	Biomechanical and histological evaluation of the osseointegration capacity of two types of zirconia implant
title_sort	biomechanical and histological evaluation of the osseointegration capacity of two types of zirconia implant
publisher	Dove Medical Press
publishDate	2016
url	https://doaj.org/article/b72fe03ee11641d5bb2556f88764aa32
work_keys_str_mv	AT hanj biomechanicalandhistologicalevaluationoftheosseointegrationcapacityoftwotypesofzirconiaimplant AT hongg biomechanicalandhistologicalevaluationoftheosseointegrationcapacityoftwotypesofzirconiaimplant AT linh biomechanicalandhistologicalevaluationoftheosseointegrationcapacityoftwotypesofzirconiaimplant AT shimizuy biomechanicalandhistologicalevaluationoftheosseointegrationcapacityoftwotypesofzirconiaimplant AT wuy biomechanicalandhistologicalevaluationoftheosseointegrationcapacityoftwotypesofzirconiaimplant AT zhengg biomechanicalandhistologicalevaluationoftheosseointegrationcapacityoftwotypesofzirconiaimplant AT zhangh biomechanicalandhistologicalevaluationoftheosseointegrationcapacityoftwotypesofzirconiaimplant AT sasakik biomechanicalandhistologicalevaluationoftheosseointegrationcapacityoftwotypesofzirconiaimplant
_version_	1718399834807861248

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

Ejemplares similares