In vivo performance of zirconia and titanium implants: a histomorphometric study in mini pig maxillae

Objectives: To compare the bone tissue response to surface-modified zirconia (ZrO2) and titanium implants. Methods: Cylindrical low-pressure injection moulded zirconia (ZrO2) implants were produced with an acid-etched surface. Titanium implants with identical shape, sandblasted and acid-etched surface (SLA) served as controls. Eighteen adult miniature pigs received both implant types in the maxilla 6 months after extraction of the canines and incisors. The animals were euthanized after 4, 8 and 12 weeks and 16 zirconia and 18 titanium implants with the surrounding tissue were retrieved, embedded in methylmethacrylate and stained with Giemsa–Eosin. The stained sections were digitized and histomorphometrically analysed with regard to peri-implant bone density (bone volume/total volume) and bone–implant contact (BIC) ratio. Statistical analysis was performed using Mann–Whitney' U-test. Results: Histomorphometrical analysis showed direct osseous integration for both materials. ZrO2 implants revealed mean peri-implant bone density values of 60.4% (SD ± 9.9) at 4 weeks, 65.4% (SD ± 13.8) at 8 weeks, and 63.3% (SD ± 21.5) at 12 weeks after implantation, whereas Ti-SLA implants demonstrated mean values of 61.1% (SD ± 6.2), 63.6% (SD ± 6.8) and 68.2% (SD ± 5.8) at corresponding time intervals. Concerning the BIC ratio, the mean values for ZrO2 ranged between 67.1% (SD ± 21.1) and 70% (SD ± 14.5) and for Ti-SLA between 64.7% (SD ± 9.4) and 83.7% (SD ± 10.3). For the two parameters investigated, no significant differences between both types of implants could be detected at any time point. Conclusion: The results indicate that there was no difference in osseointegration between ZrO2 implants and Ti-SLA controls regarding peri-implant bone density and BIC ratio. To cite this article: Gahlert M, Roehling S, Sprecher CM, Kniha H, Milz S, Bormann K. In vivo performance of zirconia and titanium implants: a histomorphometric study in mini pig maxillae. Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 23, 2012; 281–286. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02157.x