I am very very new to this debate and did not even check when the last post was made, so i may be well off the mark, BUT: from what i have read today, it seems that alot of people have had similar side effects from titanium, these have included awful tastes being produced in their mouths, legargy, and difficulty walking. I’m not suggesting it’s an inferior material for use, and it seems to have done well for some over the years, but i feel it is time to move on, hence my research into non metal implants, as i said i am very new to this debate, and am finiding it hard to come across reliable information, these threads seem to hold the best information, so i thank you for that! Just wanted to share my minute observations regarding ti. If anyone has any info on zirconium implants in the pacific region, please post. Thanks!
Pieter BoshoffSeptember 26, 2010 at 5:49 am | Permalink
I have been following this Zi versus Ti implant discussion with interest. I agree that Zirconium is a metal in a similar position in the periodic table.It is more bio-inert due to its ceramic- or glasslike outer surface which is formed during its high temperature sintering manufacture. Zi does not integrate with an oxide layer like Ti . I would agree that intra-oral prepping could adversely affect Zi-implants and therefore stress that accurate placement (and avoidance of occlusal and tongue interference as my son,Anton correctly points out)is essential. As many other commentators have pointed out,the surface anatomy of Zi-implants is the same as most Ti-implants. As such both types illicit a layer of appositional bone.This appositional bone is strong enough in most Ti-implants (oxide layer)but not enough for Zi-implants. This, I feel ,is the reason for many of the Zi-Implants I have placed coming loose 8-12months after successful placement and restoation. Another consideration being the possibly compromized intra-osseus bloodflow in many immune-compromized patients (metal-toxicity,cavitations,bi-phosphanates) I would love to see a Zi-implantwith the deep,parallel fin system of the Bicon Ti-Implant–A much thicker type of bone layer is formed and it is microscopically full of Havers Canals.A mechanically strong and well nourished bone in and around deep Zirconium fins will additionally allow one to place shorter and thicker Zi-implants. An advantage when one sees so much pre-implant bone loss(you need much more bone with Zi-implants) The metal leach out mentioned by other commentators is going to become a problem especially when reading how Titanium has been shown to be capable of changing the DNA-genome. Galvanism between the different metals in the mouth and/or orthopaedic prostheses is also a future problem. Has anyone seen the black tissue discolouration around a hip prosthesis that is beng replaced ? It is not pretty. The question of bacterial toxic microleakage at the implant-abutment interface is a vital one. When reading the emerging articles of how mere periodontitis increases the risk of myocardial infarction etc.and seeing the loss of bone around the implant -abutment interface, one cannot help but wonder if we are not Saving the Mouth and Sacrificing the Patient. The melisa test is,at present,the assessment of choice in deciding whether to use Zi or Ti We are all at risk of legal actions and must not be shown to be complacent and totally reliant on what the manufacturers are assuring us.
Peter Bishoff; Your thoughts are appreciated. However, we also have to subscribe to conventional (mainstream) treatment and not that of questionable literature or data. Those of us that have been in dentistry for some time have seen a lot of trends come and go.
I’ve heard about fully formed (CAD) zirconia implants that are simply inserted in the hole left by the extracted tooth. Seems to me this is a marvelous technology that should be implemented more widely implemented. Website: BioImplant.at …….z
My impression is that there are differences between placing titanium and ceramic implants and that just because one has experience with the former doesn’t mean one can do the latter without additional training–and preferably more than just a weekend seminar. Is this correct?
Does anyone with experience placing ceramic one-piece implants have an opinion about immediate placement (and temporary crown) following extraction vs. doing it in stages (extraction and socket grafting, healing, implant placement)? This would be particularly for anterior areas, if it makes a difference.
jilli September 13, 2010 at 8:08 pm | Permalink
I am very very new to this debate and did not even check when the last post was made, so i may be well off the mark, BUT:
from what i have read today, it seems that alot of people have had similar side effects from titanium, these have included awful tastes being produced in their mouths, legargy, and difficulty walking. I’m not suggesting it’s an inferior material for use, and it seems to have done well for some over the years, but i feel it is time to move on, hence my research into non metal implants, as i said i am very new to this debate, and am finiding it hard to come across reliable information, these threads seem to hold the best information, so i thank you for that! Just wanted to share my minute observations regarding ti.
If anyone has any info on zirconium implants in the pacific region, please post.
Thanks!
Pieter Boshoff September 26, 2010 at 5:49 am | Permalink
I have been following this Zi versus Ti implant discussion with interest. I agree that Zirconium is a metal in a similar position in the periodic table.It is more bio-inert due to its ceramic- or glasslike outer surface which is formed during its high temperature sintering manufacture. Zi does not integrate with an oxide layer like Ti .
I would agree that intra-oral prepping could adversely affect Zi-implants and therefore stress that accurate placement (and avoidance of occlusal and tongue interference as my son,Anton correctly points out)is essential.
As many other commentators have pointed out,the surface anatomy of Zi-implants is the same as most Ti-implants. As such both types illicit a layer of appositional bone.This appositional bone is strong enough in most Ti-implants (oxide layer)but not enough for Zi-implants. This, I feel ,is the reason for many of the Zi-Implants I have placed coming loose 8-12months after successful placement and restoation. Another consideration being the possibly compromized intra-osseus bloodflow in many immune-compromized patients (metal-toxicity,cavitations,bi-phosphanates)
I would love to see a Zi-implantwith the deep,parallel fin system of the Bicon Ti-Implant–A much thicker type of bone layer is formed and it is microscopically full of Havers Canals.A mechanically strong and well nourished bone in and around deep Zirconium fins will additionally allow one to place shorter and thicker Zi-implants. An advantage when one sees so much pre-implant bone loss(you need much more bone with Zi-implants)
The metal leach out mentioned by other commentators is going to become a problem especially when reading how Titanium has been shown to be capable of changing the DNA-genome. Galvanism between the different metals in the mouth and/or orthopaedic prostheses is also a future problem. Has anyone seen the black tissue discolouration around a hip prosthesis that is beng replaced ? It is not pretty.
The question of bacterial toxic microleakage at the implant-abutment interface is a vital one. When reading the emerging articles of how mere periodontitis increases the risk of myocardial infarction etc.and seeing the loss of bone around the implant -abutment interface, one cannot help but wonder if we are not Saving the Mouth and Sacrificing the Patient.
The melisa test is,at present,the assessment of choice in deciding whether to use Zi or Ti We are all at risk of legal actions and must not be shown to be complacent and totally reliant on what the manufacturers are assuring us.
Richard Hughes, DDS, FAAID, FAAIP, DABOI September 26, 2010 at 8:48 am | Permalink
Peter Bishoff; Your thoughts are appreciated. However, we also have to subscribe to conventional (mainstream) treatment and not that of questionable literature or data. Those of us that have been in dentistry for some time have seen a lot of trends come and go.
dr garima October 27, 2010 at 11:02 am | Permalink
could u please guide me with the effect of water sorption on zirconia implants and radioactive isotopes and there effect on oral cavity
thanks
Hans January 27, 2011 at 11:26 pm | Permalink
I’ve heard about fully formed (CAD) zirconia implants that are simply inserted in the hole left by the extracted tooth. Seems to me this is a marvelous technology that should be implemented more widely implemented. Website: BioImplant.at …….z
Richard Hughes, DDS, FAAID, FAAIP, DABOI January 30, 2011 at 8:48 pm | Permalink
Hans: It is a bit more involved.
ML February 6, 2011 at 7:04 pm | Permalink
My impression is that there are differences between placing titanium and ceramic implants and that just because one has experience with the former doesn’t mean one can do the latter without additional training–and preferably more than just a weekend seminar. Is this correct?
RFM March 8, 2011 at 6:53 pm | Permalink
Does anyone with experience placing ceramic one-piece implants have an opinion about immediate placement (and temporary crown) following extraction vs. doing it in stages (extraction and socket grafting, healing, implant placement)? This would be particularly for anterior areas, if it makes a difference.