Titanium currently has a well-established position as the gold standard for manufacturing dental implants; however, it is not free of flaws. Mentions of possible soft-tissue discoloration, corrosion, and possible allergic reactions have led to the development of zirconia dental implants. Various techniques for the surface modification of titanium have been applied to increase titanium implants’ ability to osseointegrate. Similarly, to achieve the best possible results, zirconia dental implants have also had their surface modified to promote proper healing and satisfactory long-term results. Despite zirconium oxide being a ceramic material, not simply a metal, there have been mentions of it being susceptible to corrosion too. In this article, we aim to review the literature available on zirconia implants, the available techniques for the surface modification of zirconia, and the effects of these techniques on zirconia’s biological properties. Zirconia’s biocompatibility and ability to osseointegrate appears unquestionably good. Despite some of its mechanical properties being, factually, inferior to those of titanium, the benefits seem to outweigh the drawbacks. Zirconia implants show very good success rates in clinical research. This is partially due to available methods of surface treatment, including nanotopography alterations, which allow for improved wettability, bone-to-implant contact, and osteointegration in general.

Titanium dental implants are widely regarded as the gold standard for the rehabilitation of missing teeth due to their high survival rates and favorable mechanical properties. However, in the oral environment, implant materials are continuously exposed to complex chemical, mechanical, and biological factors that may lead to surface degradation, including corrosion, tribocorrosion, and mechanical wear. These processes can alter implant surface characteristics and influence biological responses in peri-implant tissues. Zirconia implants have been introduced as alternative material due to their favorable aesthetics and biocompatibility. Nevertheless, zirconia ceramics are also susceptible to degradation phenomena, including hydrothermal aging, phase transformation, and surface wear under specific conditions, although their clinical relevance remains unclear. In addition, emerging hybrid titanium–zirconia implant systems introduce new considerations regarding surface stability. This scoping review, conducted in accordance with PRISMA-ScR guidelines, summarizes the current evidence on degradation mechanisms affecting titanium, zirconia, and hybrid dental implants, with particular focus on processes occurring in the oral environment and their biological and clinical implications. The available evidence differs substantially between the two materials. While titanium degradation is well documented and supported by both experimental and clinical studies, the evidence for a hybrid implant remains limited and is largely based on in vitro and mechanistic data.

Background/Objectives: Natural compounds have gained increasing attention in regenerative dentistry and medicine because of their antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, and pro-healing properties. However, their clinical translation is often limited by poor stability, low bioavailability, and insufficient local retention. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) may help overcome these limitations by functioning as autologous scaffolds or local delivery systems. This systematic review evaluated the available evidence on the use of PRP and PRF as carriers, scaffolds, or delivery matrices for natural compounds in regenerative medicine and tissue healing. Methods: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, and Embase from database inception to 1 April 2026, in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Results: The search identified 113 records, of which 11 studies met the inclusion criteria. Six studies investigated PRP-based systems and five investigated PRF-based systems. Eleven studies were included: three in vitro or ex vivo biomaterial studies, three studies combining in vitro and animal experiments, three animal studies, and two clinical studies. The natural compounds evaluated included icariin, curcumin, tannic acid, propolis, tea polyphenols, gallic acid, oligomeric procyanidins, and Moringa oleifera. The strongest direct carrier evidence was observed for freeze-dried PRP loaded with icariin, which demonstrated sustained release and improved regenerative outcomes. Most PRF-based studies focused on scaffold modification or adjunctive use rather than strict carrier function. Overall, the included studies suggested favorable effects on scaffold properties, local delivery behavior, wound healing, and tissue regeneration, but the evidence was dominated by preclinical studies and showed a moderate-to-high risk of bias. Conclusions: PRP and PRF appear to be promising autologous platforms for the local delivery of natural compounds. However, the current evidence remains limited, heterogeneous, and largely preclinical, and well-designed clinical studies are needed before routine clinical application can be recommended.