ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Comparison of Hydrophilic Properties of Titanium and Zirconia Dental Implants' Surfaces.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Influence of Blood from Patients with Different Chronic Conditions on the Wettability of Dental Implant Surfaces.Acta stomatologica Croatica · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
One of the key factors influencing osseointegration is the hydrophilicity of the surface of dental implants; high hydrophilicity is more advantageous than low hydrophilicity. This study aimed to compare the hydrophilic properties of titanium and zirconia implants from different manufacturers. An in vitro analysis was conducted on 15 implants-13 titanium and 2 zirconia-each featuring distinct compositions and surface treatments. Their hydrophilicity was assessed using the contact angle method, where a drop of saline solution was pipetted onto the apical part of the implant. For each implant, 30 contact angle measurements were taken at three different surface wetting time intervals. The contact angle is defined as the internal angle between the tangent to the surface of the liquid and the surface at the point of tangency; a smaller angle means a higher hydrophilicity. The results show that titanium implants from BTI UniCa, Nobel TiUltra, and Straumann Roxolid SLActive-which are classified as premium implants-exhibited the highest hydrophilicity. In contrast, zirconia implants demonstrated significantly lower hydrophilicity. Within this group, the Nobel Pearl implant exhibited smaller contact angles than the Bredent WhiteSKY implant. Our findings confirm that high-quality titanium implants show superior hydrophilicity, potentially improving clinical outcomes by accelerating healing and facilitating immediate loading protocols, but this could only be proven with an in vivo animal study. Conversely, the relatively lower hydrophilicity of zirconia implants highlights the need for continued advancements in zirconia composition and surface modification to optimize their osseointegration potential.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.