NobelPearl®
A two-piece ceramic implant, for patients who do not want metal
NobelPearl is a metal-free implant made from alumina-toughened zirconia rather than titanium. It is two-piece — implant and abutment separate, as with a titanium system — which gives it far more restorative flexibility than the one-piece ceramic implants that came before it, and it uses a cement-free connection secured by a carbon fibre reinforced polymer screw. It exists for patients who want no metal in the jaw, and for thin gum types where a grey shadow through the tissue is an aesthetic problem. Whether it suits your case is a clinical decision made after examination and radiological assessment.
Clinical situations where it may be considered
- Patients who want no metal
- The most common reason it is chosen. A preference for metal-free treatment is a legitimate basis for the discussion, and it does not require a diagnosis to justify it.
- Thin gum biotype
- Where the tissue is thin enough that a titanium implant can show as a grey shadow, a white implant body may be considered on aesthetic grounds.
- The visible aesthetic zone
- A white implant and abutment remove the grey substrate that a translucent ceramic crown has to mask.
- Where a one-piece ceramic implant would restrict the restoration
- Being two-piece allows the abutment to be chosen after healing, rather than the implant and abutment being a single fixed shape from the outset.
Why a clinician may select it
- The patient has asked specifically for treatment without metal
- The gum is thin and the site is visible, making the substrate colour a real aesthetic factor
- A screw-retained, cement-free connection is preferred over cemented ceramic work
- The restorative plan benefits from separating implant placement from abutment selection
- Anterior single-tooth work where the emergence appearance dominates the result
When another system may be selected instead
Ceramic is stiffer and less forgiving than titanium, and it fails differently — by fracture rather than by bending. Where the bite is heavy, where a patient grinds, where a narrow diameter would be needed, or where a long-span or complex restoration is planned, a titanium system remains the more predictable choice and has far more long-term data behind it. The restorative component range is also narrower, and revision work is more involved. NobelPearl is a considered choice for a particular patient rather than a general upgrade.
Why a ceramic implant exists at all
Titanium is an extremely good implant material. It integrates reliably, it has half a century of documentation, and it is what the overwhelming majority of implants are made from.
Ceramic implants exist for two reasons, and it is worth separating them because only one is clinical.
The aesthetic reason. Titanium is grey. Where the gum is thin, that grey can show through as a shadow at the neck of the crown, particularly at the front and particularly as tissue recedes over the years. A white implant body removes the substrate entirely.
The preference reason. Some patients simply do not want metal in their jaw. That is not a diagnosis and does not need to be dressed up as one — it is a legitimate preference, and a manufacturer producing a well-made ceramic option is answering it rather than indulging it.
What ceramic is not is a treatment for a titanium allergy in any common sense. Genuine titanium hypersensitivity is rare and its diagnosis is contested; a clinic presenting ceramic primarily as an allergy solution is on thin ground.
One-piece versus two-piece, and why it matters
Early ceramic implants were one piece — implant and abutment machined as a single unit. Simple and strong, but restrictive: the abutment angle and height are fixed at the moment of placement, before anyone knows how the tissue will heal, and the implant is exposed to the mouth from day one.
NobelPearl is two-piece. Implant and abutment are separate, as with a titanium system, so the abutment is chosen after healing and the implant can be left submerged if the case calls for it.
Joining two ceramic parts is the hard engineering problem, because a metal screw would defeat the point. The solution here is Vicarbo, a carbon fibre reinforced polymer screw, with a cement-free connection — nothing metallic, and no cement line at the tissue level.
The material
Not ordinary zirconia. Alumina-toughened zirconia, hot isostatically pressed — a process that consolidates the material under simultaneous heat and pressure to eliminate internal porosity. Implant and abutment are not re-sintered after their final geometry is machined, which preserves the properties the process produced.
The surface is Zerafil: sandblasted, acid-etched and hydrophilic, following the same principles as a modern titanium surface but executed in zirconia.
Who actually makes it
Worth stating plainly, because it differs from the rest of the range: NobelPearl is distributed by Nobel Biocare and manufactured by Dentalpoint AG.
That does not make it a lesser product — Dentalpoint is a specialist ceramic implant manufacturer and the design has its own lineage. It does mean NobelPearl does not share the manufacturing model of Nobel Biocare’s titanium implants, and a patient asking “who made the thing in my jaw” deserves the accurate answer rather than the brand on the box.
What the evidence shows
A 2025 retrospective study of 167 two-piece zirconia implants — NobelPearl together with a closely related design — in 106 patients, followed for up to 88 months with a mean of about 39 months, reported three implant losses and an effective survival of 98.2%.
Read that carefully, because the details matter more than the headline:
- Two of the three losses were fractures, one was a failure of osseointegration. That fracture ratio is the characteristic ceramic failure mode, and it is the honest counterweight to the survival figure.
- It is retrospective, from a single private practice
- It combines two commercial brands
- Mean follow-up is around three years, not ten
- It is not a randomised comparison against titanium
So: encouraging, genuinely useful, and nowhere near the depth of evidence behind titanium. Anyone presenting ceramic implants as equally proven is ahead of the literature.
How ceramic fails differently
This is the practical difference and it deserves its own section.
Titanium is ductile. Under excessive load it deforms before it breaks, and it gives warning. Ceramic is stiff and brittle: it holds its shape until it does not, and then it fractures.
The consequences follow from that. Parafunction — grinding, clenching — is a more serious contraindication for ceramic than for titanium. Narrow diameters have tighter mechanical limits. And when a ceramic implant does fracture, retrieval is more involved than removing a titanium one.
None of that makes ceramic a bad choice. It makes it a choice that requires the bite to be assessed properly first, which is true of all implant treatment and non-negotiable here.
The practical trade-off
In favour: no metal, white substrate, cement-free connection, two-piece flexibility, and a genuine answer for patients who would otherwise decline treatment.
Against: less long-term data, brittle failure behaviour, tighter limits under heavy load, narrower restorative component range, more complex revision, and a different handling protocol for both clinician and technician.
Is it right for you?
The honest answer is that it depends on why you are asking. If metal-free treatment matters to you, this is a well-made way to have it, and the two-piece design makes it considerably more flexible than what was available a decade ago. If you are asking because you have heard ceramic is better, the evidence does not support that.
Taki Dent works with the full Nobel Biocare range, ceramic included, so the question can be answered on your case rather than on what happens to be in stock.
A final diagnosis and treatment plan can only be confirmed after clinical examination and appropriate radiological assessment. Send a recent panoramic radiograph or CBCT scan, with a note on whether metal-free treatment is a priority for you and whether you grind your teeth — those two answers shape this decision more than anything else.