Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 277

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Biomechanical and histomorphometric comparison between zirconia implants with varying surface textures and a titanium implant in the maxilla of miniature pigs

Gahlert, M., Gudehus, T., Eichhorn, S., Steinhauser, E., Kniha, H., Erhardt, W.·2007·Clinical Oral Implants Research

Abstract

Background: Mechanical properties and biocompatibility make zirconia ceramics suitable implant material. The characteristics of tooth‐color like, the ability to be machined and the low plaque affinity make zirconia especially suitable as a dental implant material. The influence of surface modification on the osseointegration of this material has not been extensively investigated. Purpose: Long‐term investigations with titanium implants have shown superior biomechanical results with the sandblasted acid‐etched (SLA) surface, demonstrating a high bone–implant interaction. The objective of this study was to compare two different zirconia surface topographies biomechanically and histologically with the well‐documented titanium SLA surface. Material and methods: Zirconia implants with either a machined (ZrO 2 m) or a sandblasted (rough, ZrO 2 r) surface were manufactured with the exact same cylindrical shape with a standard ITI thread configuration as the SLA titanium implants. The incisors 2 and 3 were removed from both sides of the maxillae of 13 adult miniature pigs and the tissues left to heal for 6 months. After this time period the animals received a total of 78 implants using a randomized scheme, with the titanium SLA implant used as an only individual reference. After healing periods of 4, 8, and 12 weeks 20, 24, and 25 implants, respectively, were subjected to removal torque tests (RTQ) as the main biomechanical analysis of the of the study. A fewer number was resected on bloc, embedded in methylmethacrylat and analyzed for their direct bone apposition under a light microscope. Results: Surface analysis revealed the highest surface roughness for the SLA‐implant, followed by ZrO 2 r and ZrO 2 m. The turned ZrO 2 m implants showed statistically significant lower RTQ values than the other two implants types after 8 and 12 weeks, while the SLA implant showed significantly higher RTQs values than ZrO 2 r surface after 8 weeks. Differences in the bone apposition were observed in the histomorphometric analysis using light microscopy for all surfaces at any time point. Conclusion: The findings suggest that ZrO 2 r implants can achieve a higher stability in bone than ZrO 2 m implants. Roughening the turned zirconia implants enhances bone apposition and has a beneficial effect on the interfacial shear strength.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01401.x

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 277

Metadata

Authors
Gahlert, M., Gudehus, T., Eichhorn, S., Steinhauser, E., Kniha, H., & Erhardt, W.
Venue
Clinical Oral Implants Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-06-30
Volume
18
Issue
5
Pages
662-668
ISSN
  • 0905-7161 (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-0501
OpenAlex
W2116489881
Cited by
277
References
0
FWCI
9.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Biomechanical and histomorphometric comparison between zirconia implants with varying surface textures and a titanium implant in the maxilla of miniature pigs. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01401.x
The paper
Gahlert, M., Gudehus, T., Eichhorn, S., Steinhauser, E., Kniha, H., & Erhardt, W. (2007). Biomechanical and histomorphometric comparison between zirconia implants with varying surface textures and a titanium implant in the maxilla of miniature pigs. Clinical Oral Implants Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01401.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.