Abstract
Titanium has been used in dental implantology for over 50 years, however, metal-free implant restorations are becoming increasingly popular. Zirconia is trending as a possible alternative implant material due to its favorable material properties. Despite conflicting evidence, studies suggest zirconia is likely to replace titanium as the preferred dental implant material in the future. This study aims to determine which is the best dental implant material in the anterior region. Furthermore, this study will critically analyse and compare the two materials in regards to their biocompatibility, osseointegration, mechanical properties, aesthetics and clinical success rates. This study was conducted by using various search engines to retrieve sufficient data which ranged from PubMed, Discover @ Bolton, MDPI and Science direct. The major keywords used in this report was; ‘titanium implants’, ‘abutments’, ‘zirconia dental implants’, ‘dental implants’, ‘osseointegration’, ‘aesthetics’ and ‘mechanical properties of zirconia and titanium’. In order to retrieve sufficient data to evidence this report, 43 searches were conducted. There were a total of 2131 articles produced through these searches, although after applying ‘inclusion and exclusion’ criteria multiple sources were eliminated. A total of 288 abstracts were read for the purpose of this comparison-based study, however on applying the exclusion criteria 216 were dismissed. The inclusion criteria determined the use of 70 online journal sources and 8 manual journal sources and books, totaling 78 sources for this report. Overall, it is difficult to conclude which biomaterial is superior, as each case is patient-specific with unique requirements. Zirconia is a suitable alternative to titanium for implants in the anterior region, as its osseointegration is equally effective. In comparison to titanium, zirconia has better aesthetics and biological properties, making it a good alternative. However, zirconia has much weaker mechanical properties in comparison to titanium. Zirconia ages and has lower fracture strength and resistance therefore producing lower survival rates. In addition, zirconia, as a relatively new alternative lacks long term clinical success. Therefore, more research is required in this area to allow a full assessment of which material is superior for dental implants in the anterior region.