Titanyum ile Titanyum-Zirkonyum İmplantların 5 Yıl Üzeri Marjinal Kemik Kayıplarının Karşılaştırılması

Abstract

Titanyum (Ti), kısmi veya tam dişsizlik tedavisinde implant diş hekimliğinde en yaygın kullanılan materyaldir. Daha yakın zamanda, daha zorlu klinik koşullar için, ticari olarak saf Ti Grade 4'e kıyasla daha üstün mekanik ve biyolojik özellikler sergileyen Titanyum-Zirkonyum (TiZr) alaşımı geliştirilmiştir. Dental implantların başarısı, implant ile ağız dokuları arasındaki ilişkiye dayanmaktadır. İmplant çevresindeki marjinal kemik seviyesi stabilitesi, implant başarısının temel kriterlerinden biri olarak kabul edilmektedir. İmplant kayıpları sıklıkla, marjinal kemik kaybına bağlı implant mobilitesi ile ilişkilidir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, işlevde 5 yıldan daha uzun süredir bulunan Titanyum ve Titanyum-Zirkonyum implantlarının marjinal kemik kaybı değerlerini karşılaştırmaktır. Çalışmaya Titanyum ve %13–17 oranında Zr içeren TiZr alaşımlı implantlar dahil edilmiştir. Marjinal kemik kaybı ölçümleri bilgisayar destekli yazılım programı kullanılarak dijital olarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. TiZr alaşımlı implantlar, geleneksel Titanyum implantlara kıyasla daha az marjinal kemik kaybı göstermiştir, ancak bu fark istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bulunmamıştır. Klinik implant başarısını artırmak amacıyla TiZr alaşımının ilerleyen dönemlerde implant materyali seçiminde baskın hale gelebileceği düşünülmektedir.

Keywords

• dental implantoloji
• marjinal kemik kaybı
• titanyum zirkonyum

Comparison of Marginal Bone Loss Between Titanium and Titanium-Zirconium Implants at Least 5 Years at Function

Abstract

Titanium (Ti) is the leading material in the implant dentistry for the treatment of either partial or full edentulism. More recently, Titanium- Zirconium (TiZr) alloy has been developed for more demanding clinical conditions, as it shows greater mechanical and biological features than commercially pure Ti Grade 4. Survival of dental implants is based on the relationship between implant and oral tissues. Marginal bone level stability around implants has been used as one of the main criteria for implant success. Implant failures are often associated with implant mobility due to marginal bone loss. The aim of this study was to compare Titanium and Titanium-Zirconium implants’ marginal bone loss values which were at function more than 5 years. Titanium and 13-17% Zr containing TiZr alloy implants included in this study. Marginal bone loss measurements were performed digitally in computer software programme. TiZr alloy implants showed less marginal bone loss compared to traditional titanium implants but this difference statistically was not significant. TiZr alloy may become the dominant material in implant material choice in order to increase clinical implant success.

Keywords

• dental implants
• marginal bone loss
• titanium zirconium implants

References

1. 1. Brånemark PI. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw: experience from a 10-year period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg. 1977;16:1–132.
2. 2. What is the Success Rate of Dental Implants? [Internet]. [cited2025 Apr 16]. Available from: ttps://connect.aaid-implant.org/blog/success-rate-dental-implants
3. 3. Moraschini V, Poubel LADC, Ferreira VF, Barboza EDSP.Evaluation of survival and success rates of dental implants reported in longitudinal studies with a follow-up period of at least 10 years: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg.2015;44(3):377–88.
4. 4. Silva RCS, Agrelli A, Andrade AN, et al. Titanium dental implants: an overview of applied nanobiotechnology to improve biocompatibility and prevent infections. Materials. 2022;15(9):1–23.
5. 5. Steinemann SG. Titanium – the material of choice? Periodontology 2000. 1998;17(1):7–21.
6. 6. Karoussis IK, Salvi GE, Heitz-Mayfield LJA, Brägger U, Hämmerle CHF, Lang NP. Long-term implant prognosis in patients with and without a history of chronic periodontitis: a 10-year prospective cohort study of the ITI® Dental Implant System. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003;14(3):329–39.
7. 7. Neto HT, Tuzita AS, Gehrke SA, et al. A comparative analysis of implants presenting different diameters: extra-narrow, narrow and conventional. Materials. 2020;13(8):1888.
8. 8. Kobayashi E, Matsumoto S, Doi H, Yoneyama T, Hamanaka H. Mechanical properties of the binary titanium-zirconium alloys and their potential for biomedical materials. J Biomed Mater Res. 1995;29(8):943–50.

9. 9. Misch CE, Perel ML, Wang HL, et al. Implant success, survival, and failure: the International Congress of Oral Implantologists (ICOI) Pisa Consensus Conference. Implant Dent. 2008;17(1):5–15.
10. 10. Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The longterm efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1986;1(1):11–25.
11. 11. Clinical evidence on titanium–zirconium dental implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 45(7), 842–850 | 10.1016/j.ijom.2016.01.004.
12. 12. Müller F, Al-Nawas B, Storelli S, et al. Small-diameter titanium grade IV and titanium-zirconium implants in edentulous mandibles: five-year results from a double-blind, randomized controlled trial. BMC Oral Health. 2015;15:1–10.
13. 13. Sista S, Wen C, Hodgson PD, Pande G. The influence of surface energy of titanium-zirconium alloy on osteoblast cell functions in vitro. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2011;97A(1):27–36.
14. 14. Ghazal SS, Huynh-Ba G, Aghaloo T, et al. Randomized controlled multicenter clinical study evaluating crestal bone level change of narrow-diameter versus standard-diameter Ti-Zr implants for single tooth replacement in anterior and premolar region. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019;34(3):708–15.
15. 15. Carlsson GE, Lindquist LW, Jemt T. Long-term marginal periimplant bone loss in edentulous patients. Int J Prosthodont. 2000 Jul-Aug;13(4):295-302. PMID: 11203645.