Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 4, 2025
An Improved Mechanical Testing Method to Assess Bone-implant Anchorage
Published on: February 10, 2014
Influence of zirconia implant surface topography on first bone implant contact within a prospective cohort study
Nadja Rohr1, Marc Balmer2, Ronald E Jung2
1Biomaterials and Technology, Department of Reconstructive Dentistry, University Center for Dental Medicine Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Background:
Although 5-year clinical data exist for different zirconia implants, no analysis has yet been performed focusing on how the surface topography of the implant affects clinical parameters.
Purpose:
To analyze the influence of zirconia implant topography on first bone implant contact (fBIC).
Materials And Methods:
In a prospective two-center cohort investigation 63 zirconia implants were evaluated at implant placement, prosthetic delivery, 1, 3, and 5 years. The distance (DIB) between implant shoulder and fBIC was measured at each time point in periapical radiographs at mesial and distal sites. Two-way ANOVA/Bonferroni was used to analyze the effects of time and center (α < 0.05).
Results:
Between the centers, the mean DIB varied significantly at implant placement (Freiburg [FR]: 1.4 ± 0.6 mm; Zurich [ZH]: 0.8 ± 0.5 mm). Thereafter, no statistically significant difference in DIB was observed, neither between centers nor between time points (prosthetic delivery: FR: 1.9 ± 0.6 mm, ZH: 1.7 ± 0.8 mm; 1 year: FR: 1.8 ± 0.6 mm, ZH: 1.6 ± 0.8 mm; 3 years: FR: 1.9 ± 0.8 mm, ZH: 1.7 ± 0.8 mm; 5 years: FR: 1.9 ± 0.8 mm, ZH 1.8 ± 0.6 mm). The overall mean DIB at prosthetic delivery to 5 years of both centers (1.8 ± 0.7 mm) is located within the transition zone between the smooth neck and the moderately rough intraosseous part (1.6-2.0 mm from the implant shoulder). However, individual DIB values are ranging from 0.1 to 4.2 mm overlapping the transition zone.
Conclusions:
The standard deviation of the DIB indicates that the fBIC establishes on moderately rough and smooth surfaces. Consequently, soft tissue adapts to both topographies as well.
