Scholarlink

Background <p>Thermal changes in the oral environment can influence dental implant performance by affecting the surrounding bone. Titanium remains the most widely used implant material due to its strength and predictable osseointegration. However, zirconia has gained attention because of its lower thermal conductivity and favourable biological properties. Despite this, comparative evidence under clinically relevant thermal conditions remains limited.</p> Aim <p>To evaluate and compare the thermal behaviour of titanium and zirconia dental implants under different thermal loads, insertion depths, and bone types using three-dimensional finite element analysis (FEA).</p> Materials and methods <p>A three-dimensional finite element model including the implant, abutment, surrounding bone, and mucosa was developed. Two implant materials (titanium and zirconia), two bone types (D1 and D2), and two insertion depths (0&#xa0;mm and 1&#xa0;mm) were analysed. Thermal loads ranging from 5&#xa0;°C to 55&#xa0;°C were applied at the implant surface, with a baseline bone temperature of 35&#xa0;°C and a vertical occlusal load of 140&#xa0;N. Mesh convergence resulted in a model with 242,118 elements. Temperature distribution at the bone–implant interface was evaluated. As this was a deterministic simulation study, comparisons were based on numerical differences.</p> Results <p>Temperature increased across all models with increasing thermal load and insertion depth. Titanium implants showed greater heat transfer to surrounding bone. At 55&#xa0;°C, titanium exceeded the critical threshold of 47&#xa0;°C in D1 bone at 0&#xa0;mm insertion (bone: 50.16&#xa0;°C; interface: 50.04&#xa0;°C). Zirconia generally showed lower thermal transmission and remained below the threshold in several conditions, particularly in D2 bone. However, under certain conditions, such as deeper insertion in D1 bone, zirconia showed interface temperatures comparable to or slightly higher than titanium.</p> Conclusion <p>Within the limitations of this study, zirconia implants generally reduced heat transfer compared to titanium, although this effect depended on specific conditions. Implant material and insertion depth may influence thermal exposure at the bone–implant interface. Further experimental and clinical validation is required.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparative thermal analysis of titanium and zirconia implants with various depths of insertion in different bone types: a 3D finite element analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月28日

查看全文
  • Lipika Sen,
  • Sandipan Mukherjee,
  • Sayeed Fatma Hasan,
  • Pradyumn Bhat,
  • Rohan Sharma,
  • Srikanth Gadicherla

摘要

Background

Thermal changes in the oral environment can influence dental implant performance by affecting the surrounding bone. Titanium remains the most widely used implant material due to its strength and predictable osseointegration. However, zirconia has gained attention because of its lower thermal conductivity and favourable biological properties. Despite this, comparative evidence under clinically relevant thermal conditions remains limited.

Aim

To evaluate and compare the thermal behaviour of titanium and zirconia dental implants under different thermal loads, insertion depths, and bone types using three-dimensional finite element analysis (FEA).

Materials and methods

A three-dimensional finite element model including the implant, abutment, surrounding bone, and mucosa was developed. Two implant materials (titanium and zirconia), two bone types (D1 and D2), and two insertion depths (0 mm and 1 mm) were analysed. Thermal loads ranging from 5 °C to 55 °C were applied at the implant surface, with a baseline bone temperature of 35 °C and a vertical occlusal load of 140 N. Mesh convergence resulted in a model with 242,118 elements. Temperature distribution at the bone–implant interface was evaluated. As this was a deterministic simulation study, comparisons were based on numerical differences.

Results

Temperature increased across all models with increasing thermal load and insertion depth. Titanium implants showed greater heat transfer to surrounding bone. At 55 °C, titanium exceeded the critical threshold of 47 °C in D1 bone at 0 mm insertion (bone: 50.16 °C; interface: 50.04 °C). Zirconia generally showed lower thermal transmission and remained below the threshold in several conditions, particularly in D2 bone. However, under certain conditions, such as deeper insertion in D1 bone, zirconia showed interface temperatures comparable to or slightly higher than titanium.

Conclusion

Within the limitations of this study, zirconia implants generally reduced heat transfer compared to titanium, although this effect depended on specific conditions. Implant material and insertion depth may influence thermal exposure at the bone–implant interface. Further experimental and clinical validation is required.