Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Patient-centered perspectives and feelings on peri-implantitis and its therapy.

Periodontology 2000·2026
Same author

Clinical outcomes of implants in atrophic ridges augmented with collagenated xenogeneic or autogenous bone: 4-year follow-up of a randomized clinical trial.

Brazilian oral research·2026
Same author

Peri-implantitis-Is it mainly a clinician-initiated complication of implant therapy?

Periodontology 2000·2026
Same author

Prevalence of peri-implant disease in Germany: results of the 6th German Oral Health Study (DMS • 6).

Quintessence international (Berlin, Germany : 1985)·2026
Same author

Peri-implantitis: a systemic burden for our patients.

Frontiers in dental medicine·2026
Same author

Treatment Outcome of Surgical Protocols for Peri-Implantitis: A Retrospective Cohort Study in a Specialised University Centre.

Journal of clinical periodontology·2026

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Mar 16, 2026

Oral Biofilm Formation on Different Materials for Dental Implants
11:19

Oral Biofilm Formation on Different Materials for Dental Implants

Published on: June 24, 2018

12.3K

Bone tissue response to experimental zirconia implants.

Ilja Mihatovic1,2, Vladimir Golubovic3, Jürgen Becker3

  • 1Department of Oral Surgery, Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany. ilja.mihatovic@med.uni-duesseldorf.de.

Clinical Oral Investigations
|August 10, 2016
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

This study compared bone response to zirconia and titanium implants in dogs. While both showed osseointegration, zirconia implants had a poor survival rate, suggesting they may not be clinically suitable.

Keywords:
Animal studyHistomorphometryOsseointegrationZirconia implants

More Related Videos

Biological Compatibility Profile on Biomaterials for Bone Regeneration
10:28

Biological Compatibility Profile on Biomaterials for Bone Regeneration

Published on: November 16, 2018

13.4K
An Improved Mechanical Testing Method to Assess Bone-implant Anchorage
11:51

An Improved Mechanical Testing Method to Assess Bone-implant Anchorage

Published on: February 10, 2014

16.0K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Mar 16, 2026

Oral Biofilm Formation on Different Materials for Dental Implants
11:19

Oral Biofilm Formation on Different Materials for Dental Implants

Published on: June 24, 2018

12.3K
Biological Compatibility Profile on Biomaterials for Bone Regeneration
10:28

Biological Compatibility Profile on Biomaterials for Bone Regeneration

Published on: November 16, 2018

13.4K
An Improved Mechanical Testing Method to Assess Bone-implant Anchorage
11:51

An Improved Mechanical Testing Method to Assess Bone-implant Anchorage

Published on: February 10, 2014

16.0K

Area of Science:

  • Biomaterials Science
  • Dental Implantology
  • Histology and Histomorphometry

Background:

  • Zirconia is explored as an alternative biomaterial for dental implants.
  • Understanding bone tissue response to zirconia is crucial for osseointegration and long-term stability.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare the bone tissue response of experimental zirconia implants with varying surface roughness to titanium implants.
  • To evaluate osseointegration using descriptive histology and histomorphometry in a canine model.

Main Methods:

  • Nine beagle dogs received bilateral zirconia implants (three surface roughnesses: Z1 < Z2 < Z3) and titanium implants.
  • Tissue biopsies were collected at 3 days, 14 days, and 10 weeks post-surgery.
  • Bone-to-implant contact (BIC) was assessed, including new (nBIC), old (oBIC), and total (tBIC).

Main Results:

  • All implant groups showed initial bone contact; BIC percentages increased over time.
  • Zirconia implants exhibited a high failure rate, with 13 of 18 lost by 10 weeks.
  • Histomorphometry revealed comparable mean BIC values across groups and healing periods, without statistically significant differences.

Conclusions:

  • Bone remodeling occurred at both zirconia and titanium implant surfaces.
  • Surface roughness positively influenced BIC, though not significantly.
  • The high failure rate of the experimental zirconia implants suggests potential unsuitability for clinical application.