Zirconia Implants: A Brief Review and Surface Analysis of a Lost Implant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Zirconia implants have emerged as a valuable alternative for clinical scenarios where aesthetic demands are high, as well as in cases of hypersensitivity to titanium or for patients who refuse metallic objects in their bodies due to personal reasons. However, these implants have undergone various changes in geometry, manufacturing techniques, and surface modifications since the introduction of the first zirconia implants. The present study aims to review the current evidence on zirconia implants, considering the changes they have undergone in recent years. Additionally, it aims to analyze the three-dimensional surface characteristics of a failed zirconia implant using scanning electron microscopy and elemental analysis with energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometry (EDX). A zirconia implant lost three weeks after placement was immediately assessed using VP-SEM equipment and chemically analyzed by EDX using a 410-M detector connected to the microscope. Sparse material depositions were found on all parts of the implant, with a notable concentration in the thread grooves. The elements identified in the sample included zirconium, oxygen, carbon, calcium, and phosphorus. This report demonstrates that the surface of zirconia implants can accumulate elements early in the process of bone matrix neoformation, which is consistent with the initial stage of osseointegration.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".