Authors
Jimin Jiang, Tianfeng Ma, Han Zhu, Yujie Wang, Fuming He, Qianming Chen
Published in
Bioactive materials. Volume 69. Pages 395-420. Epub Oct 11, 2026.
Abstract
Zirconia dental implants now achieve high survival in validated systems, yet survival alone conceals a more difficult design problem: the same interventions used to accelerate tissue integration can introduce defects, phase transformation, unstable interphases, or fatigue penalties in a brittle ceramic. This review therefore starts from clinical biological and mechanical failure phenotypes and asks a different question: when is bioactivation mechanically safe? We define mechanically safe bioactivation as a functional improvement in bone or soft tissue response that does not meaningfully reduce defect tolerance, phase stability, fatigue resistance, interfacial durability, or full implant integrity. A structured literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science Core Collection, and Scopus from database inception to September 25, 2026, was used to construct an evidence map and identify finite processing windows for surface treatments and for material and structural reinforcement, rather than treating greater roughness, porosity, stabilization, or multifunctionality as inherently beneficial. Across the available evidence, the most defensible direction is to localize biological functions within mechanically supported regions while protecting the load-bearing core and critical tensile stress sites. This shifts zirconia implant development from searching for a single "best surface" toward designing a mechanically orchestrated implant system whose biological function remains credible after manufacturing, storage, insertion, aging, and loading.
PMID:
42898416
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 20 Oct 2026.
Read full publication at:
Please sign in
to see all details.
Advertisement
Stats
- Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
- Views 16
- Comments 0