Types of Dental Implant: Materials, Systems and Components Explained

A dental implant is, at its simplest, a titanium screw placed into the jaw bone to support a crown, bridge or denture (NHS). What varies between one implant and another is the material, the size and shape of the fixture, the connection between fixture and restoration, and the manufacturer’s system. Those differences account for part of the gap between two quotes. They rarely account for most of it. Most of the gap comes from what the quote actually includes.

The three parts of an implant, and why the split matters to your quote

A single-tooth implant is three separate components:

• The fixture — the screw itself, placed into the jaw bone.
• The abutment — the connector that sits on the fixture and passes through the gum.
• The crown — the visible tooth, made in a dental laboratory.

International standards treat these as one system rather than three unrelated objects. ISO 10451 defines a dental implant system as “dental implant components that are designed to mate together”, consisting of “the necessary parts and instruments to complete the implant body placement and abutment components” (Jokstad et al., International Dental Journal, 2003).

That matters commercially, because a headline “from” price does not always cover all three parts — the abutment and laboratory-made crown may be quoted afterwards. Before comparing anything, ask what the number covers. Our full UK implant cost guide breaks a total price into its parts.

What dental implants are made from

Titanium and titanium alloys

Titanium and titanium alloys are the long-established implant materials. Commercially pure titanium is graded by oxygen and iron content under the ASTM F67 standard, grade 1 being the highest purity and grade 4 offering greater yield strength among the pure grades; grade 5 is the titanium alloy usually designated Ti-6Al-4V (Jokstad et al., 2003). Manufacturers deliberately choose different grades.

The same FDI-commissioned review found that implants “made from titanium and titanium alloys appear to perform well clinically in properly surgically prepared bone, regardless of small variations of shapes and forms”. In other words, the base material is well established across the market. It is not where practices differ meaningfully from one another.

Zirconia

Zirconia implants are ceramic rather than metal. The evidence base is much thinner than for titanium. A 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis in Clinical Oral Investigations found only two randomised controlled trials suitable for comparison, reported similar survival for zirconia and titanium at 12 months, and concluded that “future RCTs are warranted to evaluate the long-term outcomes of zirconia implants” (Padhye et al., 2023).

That is a fair summary of where zirconia sits: increasingly used, and not yet supported by the decade-scale data that exists for titanium. Whether zirconia suits a particular case is a matter for clinical assessment, not for a price list.

Types of implant by what they are replacing

The fixture is broadly similar whether you are replacing one tooth or a full arch. What changes is how many are placed and what sits on top.

• Single tooth — one fixture, one abutment, one crown.
• Implant-retained dentures — commonly two fixtures used to stabilise an existing or new denture, so it clips into place rather than resting on the gum.
• Full-arch fixed bridgework — four or six fixtures supporting a fixed bridge. We cover this separately under All-on-4 full-arch implants.

Fixtures come in a range of diameters and lengths chosen to suit the bone available at the site; where there is not enough bone, a graft may be needed first, at additional cost. Survival depends on individual risk factors as well as on the treatment itself — see how long dental implants last.

Implant systems: what you are paying more for

The number of systems on the market is larger than most patients expect. The Jokstad review identified “more than 220 implant brands” produced by “about 80 manufacturers”, noting that a dentist “can in theory choose among more than 2,000 implants in a given patient treatment situation”. That was 2003. A 2025 paper in the Journal of Oral Biology and Craniofacial Research puts the figure at “more than 300 implant brands and the variety continues to evolve” (Benakatti et al., 2025).

The honest case for paying more is not that the metal is better. It is three practical things:

1. Published long-term data on that specific system, rather than on implants in general.
2. Component availability in ten or fifteen years, if an abutment or screw ever needs replacing.
3. Manufacturer support and traceability, including a documented record of exactly what was placed.

The honest case against overpaying is equally well evidenced. The same review concluded that “the scientific literature does not provide any clear directives to claims of alleged benefits of specific morphological characteristics of root-formed dental implants”, and that “a substantial number of claims made by different manufacturers on alleged superiority due to design characteristics are not based on sound and long-term clinical scientific research”.

It is worth reading the survival evidence in that light. A 2019 systematic review and sensitivity meta-analysis pooled 18 prospective studies of contemporary implant systems — solid screw, roughened surface — and found 10-year survival at the implant level of 96.4% (95% CI 95.2%–97.5%). The same authors then ran a sensitivity analysis accounting for patients lost to follow-up and produced a lower estimate of 93.2% (95% CI 90.1%–95.8%), with survival in people aged 65 and over falling to 91.5% (Howe, Keys & Richards, Journal of Dentistry, 2019;84:9–21). Both figures deserve equal billing, and the second is the more realistic of the two.

Note what those numbers are attached to: a category of contemporary implant, not a brand. Nobody should quote them to you as evidence for one product over another.

Components, compatibility and what happens years later

An implant is not finished when it is placed. A screw may loosen, a crown may need remaking, a component may need replacing — and whoever does that work needs the right parts.

A systematic review in BioMed Research International compared original abutments (made by the implant manufacturer), non-original certified abutments (third-party, certified for that system) and non-original compatible abutments (third-party, made to fit a similar connection). It found that “original and nonoriginal certified abutments showed better results in terms of mechanical outcomes, microleakage, and marginal accuracy compared to nonoriginal compatible abutments” (Tallarico et al., 2018). The authors are explicit that all 16 included studies were laboratory studies, and that in vivo randomised trials are still needed before drawing firm clinical conclusions.

The related problem is identification. As the 2025 review above notes, “the implant identification process becomes challenging when records are unavailable and patients seek treatment from different clinicians in different regions or countries” — and systems require specific tools and components. If nobody can tell what was placed, replacing a part becomes considerably harder.

UK regulation is moving toward better records. The MHRA regulates the UK medical devices market, and its 2022 consultation outcome set out measures “to improve implant traceability”, including “requiring implant information to be provided to recipients of all implantable medical devices”, with dental fillings among the exempted implantable devices, and braces and crowns treated as non-implantables (MHRA, 2022). Jokstad and colleagues had already warned that implants are, “in some parts of the world, manufactured and sold with no demonstration of adherence to any international standards”.

This is the aftercare problem at the centre of having dental implants abroad: a peer-reviewed review of dental tourism in the British Dental Journal reports a British Dental Association survey of 1,000 UK dentists in which 86% had treated people with problems following treatment abroad, with crowns and implants the treatments respondents believed most at risk of failure, and 20% estimating remedial costs above £5,000 (Doughty et al., 2025;238(4):230–237).

Questions worth asking about any implant quote

These apply to us as much as to anyone else:

• Which implant system will be used, and will I be given the manufacturer, system name and batch details in writing?
• Does the price include the abutment and the crown, or only the fixture and the surgery?
• Are the CT scan, diagnostics and review appointments included?
• Is a bone graft likely, and if so, what does that add?
• Who places the implant, who restores it, and where does aftercare happen?
• What happens if a component fails, and what is covered in writing?

What we charge at Horsforth Smile Clinic

We publish our prices. A new patient consultation is from £55, a single implant from £2,200 and a bone graft from £400 (prices correct as of July 2026). Every figure is a starting price and subject to clinical assessment — the assessment is where we confirm what your case needs and what it will cost, including exactly which components that figure covers.

The full price list covers all treatments. If you want the treatment described end to end, see dental implants in Leeds.

Suitability and risks

Implant treatment involves minor oral surgery and carries risks including infection, failure to integrate with the bone, and peri-implant disease later on. Outcomes depend on general health, gum health, bone volume, smoking and long-term maintenance, as well as on the treatment itself. Treatment is carried out under local anaesthetic; IV sedation is available for anxious patients.

Suitability for treatment depends on a clinical assessment. This treatment may not be appropriate for every patient.

Frequently asked questions

Is titanium the only material used? No. Titanium and titanium alloys are the long-established implant materials, and zirconia is a ceramic alternative. The long-term evidence base for titanium is considerably larger.

Are more expensive implant systems better? Not automatically. The published evidence does not support claims that particular designs or surface treatments are superior, and the pooled survival figures apply to contemporary implants as a category. The stronger arguments for an established system are the depth of data behind it and the likelihood that components will still be available in a decade.

Can any dentist replace a part on my implant? Only if they can identify the system and obtain the correct components. Keep the written record of what was placed, and keep it somewhere you can find it.

Are dental implants available on the NHS? Rarely. The NHS states that implants “are usually only available privately and are expensive”, and are “sometimes available on the NHS for patients who cannot wear dentures for certain reasons, such as mouth cancer or an accident” (NHS, Dental treatments).

Sources

1. Howe MS, Keys W, Richards D. Long-term (10-year) dental implant survival: a systematic review and sensitivity meta-analysis. Journal of Dentistry. 2019;84:9–21. PubMed
2. Jokstad A, Braegger U, Brunski JB, Carr AB, Naert I, Wennerberg A. Quality of dental implants. International Dental Journal. 2003;53(6 Suppl 2):409–443. Full text
3. Padhye NM, Calciolari E, Zuercher AN, Tagliaferri S, Donos N. Survival and success of zirconia compared with titanium implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2023;27(11):6279–6290. PMC
4. Tallarico M, Fiorellini J, Nakajima Y, Omori Y, Takahisa I, Canullo L. Mechanical outcomes, microleakage, and marginal accuracy at the implant-abutment interface of original versus nonoriginal implant abutments: a systematic review of in vitro studies. BioMed Research International. 2018;2018:2958982. PMC
5. Benakatti V, Nayakar RP, Anandhalli M, Sukhasare R. Advanced deep learning techniques for recognition of dental implants. Journal of Oral Biology and Craniofacial Research. 2025;15(2):215–220. PMC
6. Doughty J, Moore D, Ellis M, Jago J, Ananth P, Montasem A, Holden ACL, Johnson I. Contemporary dental tourism: a review of reporting in the UK news media. British Dental Journal. 2025;238(4):230–237. PMC
7. NHS. Dental treatments. Last reviewed 8 July 2026. nhs.uk
8. Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Consultation on the future regulation of medical devices in the United Kingdom: Chapter 11 — Implantable Devices. 26 June 2022. gov.uk