Skip to main content
. 2023 Feb 20;24(4):4200. doi: 10.3390/ijms24044200

Table 2.

Mechanical properties of ceramic implants in comparison with native bone and metal implants. “+” has the property; “-” has no property, “?” indicates that no information has been found.

Material Compressive Strength (MPa) Young’s Modulus (GPa) Poison’s Ratio Flexural Strength (MPa) Tensile Strength (MPa) Corrosion Average Wear Rate of the Placed Implant Ref
Bulk Scaffold Bulk Scaffold Bulk Scaffold
Alumina Ceramic 4500 - 300–400 - 0.21–0.22 379 106.2 350 - 1 μm/year [3,74,77,78,79]
zirconia ceramic 2500 0.6–2.04 210 0.78 0.30 1100 - 650 - ? [3,24]
Titanium ceramic ? - 53 - 0.27–0.32 ? - 665 + ? [3,24]
HA Ceramic 300–900 3.44–5.98 0.17–0.26 0.17–0.26 0.27 9 - 38–300 - ? [3,24,79,80,81]
β–TCP Ceramic 292 21.3 80–162 - 0.22–0.29 147 - - - ? [3,79]
bioglass 500 1.7–140 35 13.2 0.26–0.39 70 11 42 - ? [3,79]
Trabecular bone 0.1–50 N/A 0.05–0.5 N/A 0.25 10–20 N/A 60–160 N/A N/A [3,82]
Cortical bone 30–200 N/A 7–30 N/A 0.3 50–150 N/A 50 N/A N/A [3,82]
Stainless steel 170–310 - 200–210 - 0.29–0.3 170–310 - 480–620 + ? [3,74,75,76]
Titanium based
alloys
130 - 102.7–104.1 - 0.35 172–240 - 240–550 + ? [3,74,75]