Table 1 The dental implant composition and their ability to prevent biofilm formation

Titanium plus Apatite Hydroxide

•Good biocompatibility;

•High resistance;

•Good biosecurity

•Insufficient soft tissue integration;

•Vulnerability to biofilm accumulation;

•Contribute to oral microbiome dysbiosis;

•Induces peri-implantitis development

[26,27,28,29]

Zirconium Dioxide

•Excellent biocompatibility;

•Good tissue integration inducing low bone reabsorption;

•Low affinity to bacterial biofilm

•Weak material;

•Frequently fracture

[30,31,32,33]

Titanium implants coated with zirconia

•Reduced adhesion of S. mutans and P. gingivalis

More studies are necessary

[34]

Zirconia plus TiO₂ coverage

•Favorable for osteogenic effects

More studies are necessary

[34, 35]

Ceramic-based alternatives

•Anti-inflammatory and antimicrobial properties;

•When associated with bio-glass, demonstrate reduction of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) growth

•The processing and shaping them is demanding, and thus accessible design options are limited

[25]

Nanostructures-based alternatives

•Better osteointegration;

•Good surface porosity, roughness, and wettability;

•Included bioactive components;

•Increased osteoblast proliferation;

•Low bacterial adhesion;

•Low biofilm maturation of pathogenic species P. gingivalis, T. denticola and T. forsythia

•Decrease in pathogenic species S. aureus and P. aeruginosa viability

More studies are necessary

[23, 36,37,38,39]

Polyetheretherketone (PEEK)

•Mechanical and physical properties like bone and dentin;

•Wettability and nano-roughness demonstrating bactericidal and/or anti-adhesive effect on biofilm biomass from Streptococcus oralis

More studies are necessary

[40, 41]

Carbon fiber-reinforced PEEK (CFR-PEEK)

•Reduced lateral stress on implants as well as crestal bone loss

•No microbiological studies were performed for this structure until now, to verify the biofilm formation

[42]