Which is the best material for dental implants? As technology continues to develop more options become available, including G-Cam which is a PMMA material that has been reinforced with graphene. Current popular options include titanium, zirconia, ceramics, and advanced polymers. Other options include hybrid polymers or alloys. We’ve created this guide to helps clinicians and labs better understand the materials that are currently available.
While we often focus on the visible crown, the implant post is the foundation of long-term success. Understanding the core materials is essential when evaluating the best materials for dental implants for a specific case.
Titanium (commercially pure or alloyed) is by far the most widely used implant post material. Its long track record stems from strong biocompatibility, good corrosion resistance, and reliable osseointegration, meaning the bone naturally fuses with the implant for a secure hold.
Pros:
Proven Success: Used successfully for many years with strong clinical outcomes.
Strong and Durable: Its strength and slight flexibility help absorb biting pressure.
Versatile: Compatible with many implant parts and systems.
Cons:
Aesthetics: The gray color can show through thin or receding gums.
Sensitivities: A small number of patients may react to metal.
Corrosion Risk: Mixing different metals in the mouth may cause minor reactions in rare cases.
Zirconia is a white ceramic (zirconium dioxide), appealing primarily to patients demanding a non-metal solution or maximum aesthetics.
Pros:
Superior Aesthetics: The natural white color hides gray tones and looks great in the smile zone.
Excellent Biocompatibility: Gentle on the body and ideal for patients who prefer metal-free options.
Tissue Health: Zirconia does not conduct electricity and is generally well-tolerated by gum tissue.
Cons:
Brittleness: More rigid than titanium and can chip or crack under heavy pressure.
Shade Changes: Color can shift slightly during sintering(the process to harden and set the zirconia).
Limited Data: Long-term research is not as extensive as titanium’s.
Cracks: Small gaps or cracks that form after implantation are difficult to repair.
Customization Limits: One-piece systems can make adjustments harder.
Clinking: When used on both arches, zirconia can create a clicking sound when chewing.
This alloy was created to combine titanium’s strength and ability to bond with bone, known as osseointegration, with zirconium’s durability.It supports smaller implant designs while maintaining good strength and stability.
Pros:
Stronger and More Durable: Combines titanium’s strength with zirconium’s corrosion resistance for better longevity.
Good Biocompatibility & Osseointegration: Bonds well with bone and is gentle on surrounding tissue.
Smaller Implants Possible: Its strength allows for narrower implants in limited spaces.
Mechanical Versatility: Less brittle than ceramics but strong enough for heavy biting forces.
Cons:
Aesthetic Limits: The metal’s gray tint can sometimes show through thin gums.
Shorter Track Record: Has less long-term clinical history than pure titanium.
Higher Cost: The complex alloying process can make it more expensive.
Metal Reaction Risk: Using different metals together may cause small reactions or wear over time.
Clinicians now have several alternative restorative materials to zirconia, offering dependable options for crowns and bridges to meet different clinical needs.
Pros:
Strong & Rigid: The metal framework underneath gives high strength and stability.
Natural Look with Porcelain: The porcelain covers the metal and gives a tooth-like appearance.
Cost-Effective: Offers a balance between strength, appearance, and affordability.
Lab-Friendly Workflow: Many dental labs are experienced with PFM techniques and materials.
Cons:
Metal Margin Visibility: The metal edge can become visible at the gum line, especially if gums recede.
Porcelain Chipping or Fracture: The porcelain layer can crack or chip under stress.
Less Esthetic than Full Ceramics: Doesn’t match the translucency or lifelike appearance of full ceramic restorations.
Wear on Opposing Teeth: The hard metal or porcelain surface may cause wear on natural teeth it contacts.
Metal Sensitivities: Some patients may react to the metal alloys used in the framework.
Pros:
Aesthetic: Natural color and translucency can closely resemble real teeth when properly fabricated.
Durable: Strong and long-lasting when used in the right location.
Biocompatible: Gentle on gums and resistant to plaque buildup.
Stable Color: Maintains shade and shine over time.
Cons:
Brittle: Can chip or fracture under heavy biting forces.
Higher Cost: More expensive than acrylic options.
Technique Sensitive: Requires careful handling and lab precision for best results.
Pros:
Lightweight & Comfortable: Easier for patients to adjust to, especially in full-arch restorations.
Affordable: Lower material and production cost make it a good temporary option.
Easy to Repair: Can be quickly fixed or adjusted chairside.
Immediate Use: Ideal for short-term or provisional restorations while implants heal.
Cons:
Not a Permanent Material: Often used off-label for long-term use, but not FDA-cleared as a permanent solution.
Less Durable: Prone to staining, scratching, and breaking over time.
Wear & Color Changes: Can lose polish or discolor faster than ceramics.
Requires Replacement Plan: Labs and clinicians should agree on how long it will be used to avoid confusion with patients.
G-Cam is an emerging alternative restorative material to zirconia that is gaining attention in some dental laboratories. G-Cam is a type of plastic (PMMA) that’s strengthened with graphene, a super-thin form of carbon known for being very strong and flexible. Adding graphene makes the material tougher and more durable than regular acrylic, offering a lightweight alternative in the Zirconia vs G-Cam comparison.
Pros:
Lightweight: Up to 80% lighter than zirconia, making it comfortable and gentle on implants.
Absorbs Bite Forces: Flexibility helps reduce stress on opposing teeth and fixtures.
Easy to Repair: Can be relined or fixed chairside with composite resin.
Fast Production: No sintering means quicker turnaround times for labs.
Suitable for Full-Arch Restorations: Can be considered when weight reduction and flexibility are desired.
Appealing Alternative: A popular alternative restorative material to zirconia for patients who need a softer, more adaptable option.
Cons:
Limited Long-Term Data: Has less research and clinical history than zirconia and other materials.
Lower Strength: Not as hard or rigid as fully sintered zirconia.
Fracture Risk: Can wear or crack over time, especially in patients who grind their teeth.
Aesthetic Limits: Its color and shine don’t fully match natural teeth tones.
Both materials rank among the best materials for dental implants, but they serve different needs. When comparing zirconia vs G-Cam, the choice depends on strength, comfort, and workflow. These alternative restorative materials to zirconia provide different advantages, allowing clinicians to match each material to the patient’s specific needs.
Zirconia
Strong, rigid, and highly durable for long-term restorations.
Ideal for heavy biting forces and load-bearing areas.
Offers stable color and a natural, bright appearance.
Hard to repair once cracked and heavier than G-Cam.
G-Cam
Lightweight and flexible, reducing stress on implants.
Easy to repair chairside with composite resin.
Faster production time with no sintering required.
Less proven long-term and not as translucent as ceramics.
Both materials perform well when matched to the right case—there’s no single “best” choice for every patient.
Choosing the best materials for dental implants depends on several key factors. Clinicians and labs should consider bite force, bone quality, and gum thickness, along with the patient’s aesthetic goals and sensitivity to metals. For some cases, alternative restorative materials to zirconia, like hybrid polymers, may offer easier repairs and faster workflows. Ultimately, the decision should balance function, comfort, and long-term value for each individual patient.
In the end, there’s no single answer to what makes the best materials for dental implants, only the right choice for each unique case. Every material, from titanium to alternative restorative materials to zirconia, offers its own balance of strength, esthetics, and adaptability. By staying transparent about these options, whether it’s zirconia vs G-Cam or any other combination, clinicians and labs can select restorations that meet patients’ functional and aesthetic needs.
