Evaluation of a New Titanium‐Zirconium Dental Implant: A Biomechanical and Histological Comparative Study in the Mini Pig
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Titanium zirconium alloy with 13-17% zirconium (TiZr1317) shows significantly better mechanical attributes than pure Ti with respect to elongation and fatigue strength. This material may be suitable for thin implants and implant components exposed to high mechanical constraints. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that TiZr1317 and Ti implants show comparable osseointegration and stability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The mandibular premolars (P1, P2, P3) and the first molar (M1) in 12 adult miniature pigs were extracted 3 months prior to the study. Six specially designed implants made from Ti (commercially pure, Grade 4) or TiZr1317 (Roxolid®, Institut Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland) with a hydrophilic sandblasted and acid-etched (SLActive, Institut Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland) surface were placed in each mandible; three standard implants modified for evaluation of removal torque (RT) in one side and three bone-chamber implants for histologic observations in the contralateral side. RT tests were performed after 4 weeks when also the bone chamber implants and surrounding tissue were biopsied for histologic analyses in ground sections. RESULTS: The RT results indicated significantly higher stability (p=0.013) for TiZr1317 (230.9±22.4Ncm) than for Ti implants (204.7±24.0Ncm). The histology showed similar osteoconductive properties for both implant types. Histomorphometric measurements showed a statistically significant higher (p=0.023) bone area within the chamber for the TiZr1317 implants (45.5±13.2%) than did the Ti implants (40.2±15.2%). No difference was observed concerning the bone to implant contact between the groups with 72.3±20.5% for Ti and 70.2±17.3% for TiZr1317 implants. CONCLUSION: It is concluded that the TiZr1317 implant with a hydrophilic sandblasted and acid-etched surface showed similar or even stronger bone tissue responses than the Ti control implant.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".