Biocompatibility of Implant Materials
In the quest for better oral health, we must consider the biocompatibility of various Implant Materials. The materials used for implant surgery must be biologically inert, as their goal is to remain permanently in the body. Any implant material that can be metabolized would result in unforeseeable long-term consequences. In addition, implants materials that may be prone to oxidation or release biologically active particles are undesirable. Therefore, implant materials must have the best possible biocompatibility to ensure that the patient does not experience any adverse side effects.
The application of titanium as an implant material is not new. In fact, it has been the subject of numerous studies. Its properties in biomedical applications have been optimized by nitrogen-implanted titanium alloy. For example, implant surfaces of this alloy have been studied by X-ray diffraction, secondary ion mass spectrometry, and nano-indentation. Moreover, biocompatibility studies were performed on human fetal osteoblasts.
Biocompatibility studies of titanium implants have revealed a positive relationship between the design flexibility and bone ingrowth. This finding opens new horizons for the application of titanium-based EBM implants. This article will provide an overview of some of the latest developments in the field. In the future, titanium alloys are expected to replace metal-casting and machining processes, which reduce manufacturing costs and lead to reduced waste. Further, these technologies are likely to enable more complex implants.
Zirconia about Implant Materials
One of the main advantages of using zirconia as an implant material is its similarity to titanium. Since zirconia has the same physical properties, it bonds to bone, just like titanium does. The downside of using zirconia as an implant material is that it is less likely to cause allergic reactions, although titanium is one of the most common metals to cause allergies. The good news is that titanium is not very common, but 6% of patients do have an allergy to it. Patch tests are not very sensitive, and the MELISA test confirms sensitization but can result in false positives.
The study identified fourteen papers that reported on the survival of implants made of zirconia. The primary limitation of the meta-analysis was that only implants with a one-piece design were included. The short observation period of the studies led to a survival rate of 92%. The rate of early failure in one-piece zirconia implants was almost as high, ranging from 1.8% to 100%. These findings suggest that two-piece zirconia implants have similar survival rates.
Stainless steel implant materials have high metallurgical qualities that meet the stringent requirements of the European and American medical communities. The material must meet the minimum content of nickel (0.03%), molybdenum (2.25%), and chromium (10%) in the compositional requirement for implants. Additionally, the alloy should be face-centered-cubic (FCC) in structure, which is the preferred structural and mechanical property for implant applications. 강남역치과
Medical device manufacturers typically recertify lots of stainless steel implant quality. Recertification is an important part of the Quality Assurance program. Some stainless steels are ordered in annealed and moderately cold-worked conditions. Cold-worked stainless steels generally increase ultimate tensile strength and 0.2% yield strength. Additionally, grain size tends to be smaller than in annealed stainless steel.
High density polyethylene
Porous high density polyethylene (HDPE) implants offer surgeons an alternative to autogenous and alloplastic implant materials because they have a pore size that allows for good soft tissue ingrowth and coverage. However, high porosity of this material has its disadvantages, which we will discuss below. Porous implants are difficult to contour to complex skeletal structures. This is a drawback, but it is one that is worth considering for certain situations.
One drawback of HDPE is its poor bioactivity and visco-elastic behavior. To improve this characteristic, ceramic nano-particles can be added to the polymer. This can lead to the formation of a composite polymer matrix that can replace metals. In recent studies, ceramic materials have been used as fillers in HDPE implants. Because of these advantages, HDPE is increasingly used in the manufacture of medical implants.
There are pros and cons to both metal and gold dental implants. The first is that metal is not as long-lasting as gold, and the second is that the gold-covered implant is much more expensive. The pros of gold include durability and long-term wear, but this material has also been used in dental prostheses for many years. In addition to being durable, gold is also not known to cause any adverse health effects, making it an excellent choice for many dental patients.
In recent years, research teams have developed an alloy made of titanium and gold. While working on unconventional magnets, they came across this alloy. The alloy, which is called beta-Ti3Au, contains three parts titanium and one part gold. While gold implants are not as durable as other metals, the material’s low cost may make it an appealing choice for some patients. Aside from its long-lasting qualities, gold implants are also easier to clean and require fewer visits.