1Senior Lecturer, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Kalinga Institute of Dental Sciences, KIIT University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India. Email: dranitamohanty07@gmail.com
2PG, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Institute of Dental Sciences, SOA University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India. Email: satyammohanty07@gmail.com
3Hi-Tech Dental College and Hospital, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India. Email: sntripathy76@gmail.com
4PG, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Hi-Tech Dental College and Hospital, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India. Email: sks763395@gmail.com
5Reader, Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Dental College & Hospital, Siruvachur, Chennai - Trichy National highway, Perambalur, Tamilnadu, India. Email: drsriramchoudary87@gmail.com
6Senior Lecturer, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Kalinga Institute of Dental Sciences, KIIT University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India. Email: sasankannaluru@gmail.com
Corresponding Author: Dr. Anita Mohanty, Email: dranitamohanty07@gmail.com
Background: Dental implants are widely used for the replacement of missing teeth, with titanium implants considered the gold standard due to their excellent biocompatibility and long-term success. However, zirconia implants have recently gained attention as an alternative material because of their superior esthetic properties and favorable biological response. Despite these advantages, limited evidence exists comparing zirconia and titanium implants in terms of osseointegration and long-term stability.
Aim: The aim of the present study was to compare zirconia and titanium dental implants with respect to osseointegration and long-term stability.
Methodology: This prospective comparative study included a total of 100 patients requiring single-tooth dental implants. The participants were randomly divided into two equal groups: Group A received zirconia implants (n=50) and Group B received titanium implants (n=50). Implant placement was performed following standard surgical protocols. Implant stability was assessed using resonance frequency analysis and expressed as the Implant Stability Quotient (ISQ). Radiographic evaluation was conducted to assess marginal bone loss. Patients were followed up at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after implant placement. The collected data were analyzed using statistical software, and comparative analysis between the two groups was performed using appropriate statistical tests with a significance level set at p < 0.05.
Results: Both zirconia and titanium implants demonstrated progressive improvement in implant stability during the follow-up period. Titanium implants showed slightly higher ISQ values and lower marginal bone loss compared to zirconia implants. The survival rates were 94% for zirconia implants and 96% for titanium implants, with no statistically significant difference between the groups.
Conclusion: Both zirconia and titanium implants exhibited satisfactory osseointegration and clinical stability. Although titanium implants showed slightly better stability outcomes, zirconia implants can be considered a promising esthetic alternative in dental implant therapy.
Keywords: Zirconia implants, Titanium implants, Osseointegration, Implant stability, Dental implant survival.
How to cite this article: Mohanty A, Mohanty S, Tripathy S, Sultan SK, Choudary NS, Annaluru S. Comparision of Zirconia and Titanium Implants in terms of Osseointegration and long term stability. Int J Drug Deliv Technol. 2026; 16(8s): 405-411; DOI: 10.25258/ijddt.16.8s.54
Source of support: Nil.
Conflict of interest: None