Abstract
Modern dental implantology is based on a set of more or less related first-order parameters, such as the implant surface and the intrinsic composition of the material. For decades, implant manufacturers have focused on the research and development of the ideal material combined with an optimal surface finish to ensure the success and durability of their product. However, brands do not always communicate transparently about the nature of the products they market. Thus, this study aims to compare the surface finishes and intrinsic composition of three zirconia implants from three major brands. To do so, cross-sections of the apical part of the implants to be analyzed were made with a micro-cutting machine. Samples of each implant of a 4 to 6 mm thickness were obtained. Each was analyzed by a tactile profilometer and scanning electron microscope (SEM). Compositional measurements were performed by X-ray energy-dispersive spectroscopy (EDS). The findings revealed a significant use of aluminum as a chemical substitute by manufacturers. In addition, some manufacturers do not mention the presence of this element in their implants. However, by addressing these issues and striving to improve transparency and safety standards, manufacturers have the opportunity to provide even more reliable products to patients.