Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download
ePaper created 2017-11-09, 09:28:26 | version 1.38.0
| overview Ceramic implants: Yesterday a vision, today an everyday challenge? Dr Jochen Mellinghoff, Germany When the first ceramic implants were inserted in the 1960s and 1970s under the supervision of Prof. Willi Schulte in Tübingen in Germany, expectations were high and it appeared that an alternative to the already suc- cessful titanium implants had been found. However, in practice, it turned out differently. The implants had a high failure rate due to incomplete healing and fractures, meaning they were unacceptable for further use. This led to considerable initial scepticism around ceramic dental implants. In Germany specifically, there was a prejudice concerning the concept of ceramic implants as a whole. Fractures of ceramic components were famil- iar to all dentists. They saw chipping of veneer ceramics and ceramic-fused-to-metal restorations, as well as frac- tures of newly developed full ceramics, in everyday pros- thetic practice. From these experiences, it appeared that ceramic implants would not be strong enough for use in implantation. Consequently, research into titanium implants went forward quickly, while implant technology with ceramic implants was regarded as a maverick method. Despite all the positive differences in its chemical and physical properties compared with those of the previously used aluminium oxide ceramics, the advantages of zirconium dioxide only slowly gained recognition. In zirconium di- oxide ceramic, we now have a material at our disposal with the properties necessary for successful and safe ceramic implants. The safety of the material is the primary concern of zirco- nium dioxide ceramic implants and, once achieved, leads to additional advantages, for example good gingiva com- patibility owing to their high adhesiveness and aesthetic benefits in avoiding shadow formations when a lower amount of peri-implant tissue is present.1,2 Furthermore, overall, very good biocompatibility has been proven.3 Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Fig. 1: Fürhauser’s Pink Esthetic Score: 1 = left papilla; 2 = right papilla; 3 = soft-tissue level; 4 = soft-tissue contour; 5 = alveolar extension continuity; 6 = colour; 7 = texture. Figs. 2–5: Case 1: A Z5m implant was inserted in region #22. A high level of patient satisfaction was achieved. 14 implants 1 2017