Table 1.
Examples of in vitro and in vivo zirconia biocompatibility studies.
| Studied Cell Type and/or Tissue | Study Conclusions | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Fibroblasts | Yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystals (3Y-TZPs) ceramic did not induce any mutagenic or cellular transforming effects. | [113] |
| Osteoblasts | Zirconia ceramics did not alter cell ploidy or the cell growth rate. | [114] |
| Macrophages | Zirconia ceramics particles induced macrophage apoptotic cell death, in vitro. | [115] |
| Fibroblasts; subcutaneous implant test |
ZrO2/Al2O3 composite showed no cytotoxicity and no significant adverse effects in soft tissues. | [116] |
| Osteoblasts | Zirconia samples insured good levels of biocompatibility. | [117] |
| Osteoblasts | ZrO2, Al2O3, and PMMA (poly (methyl methacrylate)) particles triggered direct effects on osteoblasts. Cell responses depended on the particle type. ZrO2 effect on alkaline phosphatase activity was targeted to the matrix vesicles. | [118] |
| Bone and muscle; Fibroblasts |
New zirconia implants illustrated good biocompatibility and mechanical properties. | [119] |
|
Osteosarcoma-derived osteoblasts (SaOs-2); human gingival fibroblasts (HGF);monocytes (THP-1) |
Zirconia particles affected the viability of SaOs-2 and HGF, but did not induce proinflammatory reactions in THP-1. | [120] |
| Human dental pulp stem cells; murine pre-osteoblasts |
Zirconia as a potential dental implant material, illustrated similar or, even, better initial cellular responses versus titanium. | [121] |