Will Zirconia Implants Replace Titanium Implants?

Abstract

This review aims to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of zirconia implants compared with titanium implants. Moreover, it intends to review the relevant available long-term literature of these two materials regarding osteointegration, soft-tissue, microbiota, and peri-implantitis, focusing on clinical results. Briefly, titanium implants are a reliable alternative for missing teeth; however, they are not incapable of failure. In an attempt to provide an alternative implant material, implants made from ceramic-derivate products were developed. Owing to its optimal osseointegration competence, biocompatibility, and esthetic proprieties, zirconium dioxide (ZrO2), also known as zirconia, has gained popularity among researchers and clinicians, being a metal-free alternative for titanium implants with its main use in the anterior esthetic zones. This type of implant may present similar osseointegration as those noted on titanium implants with a greater soft-tissue response. Furthermore, this material does not show corrosion as its titanium analog, and it is less susceptible to bacterial adhesion. Lastly, even presenting a similar inflammatory response to titanium, zirconia implants offer less biofilm formation, suggesting less susceptibility to peri-implantitis. However, it is a relatively new material that has been commercially available for a decade; consequently, the literature still lacks studies with long follow-up periods.