LAUSR

This review aims to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of zirconia implants compared with titanium implants. Moreover, it intends to review the relevant available long-term literature of these two materials regarding osteointegration, soft-tissue, microbiota, and peri-implantitis, focusing on clinical results. Briefly, titanium implants are a reliable alternative for missing teeth; however, they are not incapable of failure. In an attempt to provide an alternative implant material, implants made from ceramic-derivate products were developed. Owing to its optimal osseointegration competence, biocompatibility, and esthetic proprieties, zirconium dioxide (ZrO2), also known as zirconia, has gained popularity among researchers and clinicians, being a metal-free alternative for titanium implants with its main use in the anterior esthetic zones. This type of implant may present similar osseointegration as those noted on titanium implants with a greater soft-tissue response. Furthermore, this material does not show corrosion as its titanium analog, and it is less susceptible to bacterial adhesion. Lastly, even presenting a similar inflammatory response to titanium, zirconia implants offer less biofilm formation, suggesting less susceptibility to peri-implantitis. However, it is a relatively new material that has been commercially available for a decade; consequently, the literature still lacks studies with long follow-up periods.