Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 12, 2026
Oral Biofilm Formation on Different Materials for Dental Implants
Published on: June 24, 2018
Fatigue Survival and Biomechanical Behavior of Two-piece Titanium and Zirconia Dental Implants
Jefferson David Melo de Matos1, Guilherme da Rocha Scalzer Lopes1, Nathália de Carvalho Ramos2
1PhD, Department of Biomaterials, Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Institute of Science and Technology, São José dos Campos, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Background:
Titanium implants are considered the gold standard for oral rehabilitation; however, zirconia implants have emerged as a metal-free alternative with promising esthetic and biological properties. Despite these advantages, limited evidence is available regarding their long-term fatigue behavior and fracture resistance.
Material And Methods:
In this in vitro experimental study conducted at São Paulo State University (UNESP), Brazil, forty implants were divided into two groups (n = 20): zirconia implants (ZZ) and titanium implants (TZ) (4.1 × 10 mm). Implants were embedded in polyurethane blocks according to ISO 14801:2016 specifications. Monolithic zirconia crowns were fabricated using CAD/CAM technology and cemented onto zirconia abutments. All assemblies underwent thermomechanical aging (2×106 cycles, 200 N, 2 Hz). Fatigue resistance was assessed using a stepwise loading protocol. Crown-abutment misfit was measured microscopically, and torque loss after fatigue was recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using Mann-Whitney U tests and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis ( = 0.05).
Results:
Zirconia implants showed significantly greater fracture resistance (1123.73 ± 153.61 N) than titanium implants (818.67 ± 42.41 N) (p = 0.037). No significant difference in fatigue survival was observed between groups (p = 0.097). The zirconia group presented greater crown-abutment misfit (39.63 ± 10.1 m) than the titanium group (25.09 ± 4.6 m) (p < 0.001). Catastrophic implant body fractures were more frequent in the zirconia group, whereas titanium implants exhibited more repairable failure modes.
Conclusions:
Zirconia implants demonstrated similar fracture resistance but showed catastrophic implant fractures, whereas titanium implants presented repairable failure patterns.
