Citation Information :
Kannaiyan K, Jalaluddin M, Rathod A, Ramesh KR, Gupta S, Kansar N. Impact of Different Surface Treatments on Flexural Strength and Surface Roughness of Zirconia Implant Material: An In Vitro study. World J Dent 2021; 12 (1):38-41.
Aim: The present study aimed to assess the effect of various surface treatment options on surface roughness and flexural strength of the zirconia implant material.
Materials and methods: This study included a total of 45 prefabricated samples of sintered zirconia disks. Grit papers of silicon carbide (240–1200 μm) were used to polish the sample surfaces and were then washed with water to clear any particles generated while polishing. These samples were segregated into three groups (15 samples in each group). Group I: control, group II: UV light-treated zirconia disks, group III: sandblasted and acid-etched (SLA)-treated zirconia disks. The surface characteristics of test samples post-surface treatment were evaluated with a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Post-surface treatment of all the three groups, surface roughness was analyzed with a digital optical profilometer. Flexural strength of zirconia samples was assessed using piston on a Universal load testing machine with the three-point bending test.
Results: The highest surface roughness was recorded in SLA-treated zirconia group (0.524 ± 0.028) next by UV light-treated group (0.510 ± 0.132) and control group (0.466 ± 0.016). However, there was no statistically significant result seen between the groups. The highest flexural strength was found in the control group (596.21 ± 1.246) next by UV light-treated (488.45 ± 2.108) and SLA-treated zirconia group (424.67 ± 1.022). A statistically significant result was recorded between groups I and II, groups I and III (p < 0.001).
Conclusion: The highest surface roughness was recorded in the SLA-treated zirconia group followed by the UV light-treated group and the control group. There was a statistically significant difference noted for flexural strength between the control group with the SLA group and the UV light-treated group.
Clinical significance: The ongoing research in dentistry aims for enhancements in the bioactivity of zirconia implants so as to achieve improved healing and lowered morbidity. Now a days, zirconia is gradually emerging as an important material that might substitute the gold standard of the dental implant.
Jacobi-Gresser E, Huesker K, Schutt S. Genetic and immunological markers predict titanium implant failure: a retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013;42(4):537–543. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2012.07.018.
Kirmali O, Kustarci A, Kapdan A. Surface roughness and morphologic changes of zirconia: effect of different surface treatment. Niger J Clin Pract 2015;18:124–129.
Jackson MC. Restoration of posterior implants using a new ceramic material. J Dent Technol 1999;16:19–22.
Tschernitschek H, Borchers L, Geurtsen W. Nonalloyed titanium as a bioinert metal- a review. Quintessence Int 2005;36:523–530.
Zechner W, Tangl S, Fürst G, et al. Osseous healing characteristics of three different implant types. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003;14(2):150–157. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2003.140203.x.
Zembic A, Sailer I, Jung RE, et al. Randomized controlled clinical trial of customized zirconia and titanium implant abutments for single-tooth implants in canine and posterior regions: 3-year results. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20(8):802–808. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01717.x.
Sennerby L, Dasmah A, Larsson B, et al. Bone tissue responses to surface-modified zirconia implants: a histomorphometric and removal torque study in the rabbit. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2005;7(s1):13–20. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2005.tb00070.x.
Gahlert M, Burtscher D, Grunert I, et al. Failure analysis of fractured dental zirconia implants. Clin Oral Implants 2012;23(3):287–293. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02206.x.
Gahlert M, Rohling S, Wieland M, et al. A comparison study of the osseointegration of zirconia and titanium dental implants. A biomechanical evaluation in the maxilla of pigs. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2010;12(4):297–305. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00168.x.
Bachle M, Butz F, Hubner U, et al. Behavior of CAL72 osteoblast-like cells cultured on zirconia ceramics with different surface topographies. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18(1):53–59. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01292.x.
Gahlert M, Gudehus T, Eichhorn S, et al. Biomechanical and histomorphometric comparison between zirconia implants with varying surface textures and titanium implant in the maxilla of miniature pigs. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18(5):662–668. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01401.x.
Hisbergues M, Vendeville S, Vendeville P. Zirconia: established facts and perspectives for a biomaterial in dental implantology. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2009;88(2):519–529. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.31147.
Andreiotelli M, Wenz HJ, Kohal RJ. Are ceramic implants a viable alternative to titanium implants? a systematic literature review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20:32–47. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01785.x.
Att W, Hori N, Takeuchi M, et al. Time-dependent degradation of titanium osteoconductivity: an implication of biological aging of implant materials. Biomaterials 2009;30(29):5352–5363. DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.06.040.
Han Y, Yan Y, Lu C. Ultraviolet-enhanced bioactivity of ZrO. Thin Solid Films 2009;517(5):1577–1581. DOI: 10.1016/j.tsf.2008.09.064.
Zinelis S, Thomas A, Syres K, et al. Surface characterization of zirconia dental implants. Dent Mater 2010;26(4):295–305. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2009.11.079.
Meshramkar R, Shetty P, Anehosur G, et al. Effect of different surface treatment of zirconia on surface roughness, microhardness and flexural strength. Curr Adv in Dental Sci 2020;01(01):6–11.