About
Contact
End User Licence Agreement
Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions
Affiliate Disclosure
Cookie Policy

© 2026 Meedu™. All Rights Reserved.

beta

King's Year 3 BDS: Dental Materials · Meedu

Course
Dentistry

King's Year 3 BDS: Dental Materials

Biocompatibility of Materials for Use in the Body

Failure of Materials (Parts 1 & 2)

Metals in the Mouth

Polymers & Composites in Dentistry

Introduction to Ceramics

Amalgam Restorations

Principles of Adhesion to Enamel & Dentine

Dental Composites: Aesthetic Restorative Materials

Clinical Aspects of Adhesion

Impression Materials: Linking Labs to Clinics

Elastomeric Impression Materials

Ceramics: Indirect Restorations

Metals: Directing the Lab to Do the Work

Acrylic Materials

Imaging Technology & CAD-CAM

King's Year 3 BDS: Dental Materials

Year 3 Dental Materials module at King's College London Dental Institute. Biocompatibility, materials failure, metals in the mouth, polymers & composites, ceramics, amalgam, adhesion, dental composites, GIC cements, impression materials, indirect restorations, dental cements, acrylic materials and imaging/CAD-CAM technology.

A

B

C

D

Loading your questions...

/24

A titanium dental implant integrates successfully with bone but causes persistent low-grade peri-implant inflammation in a subset of patients. Which conclusion best reflects contemporary understanding of biocompatibility in this scenario?

Select the correct answer

A. The implant is not biocompatible because any inflammatory response constitutes an unacceptable host reaction.1

B. The implant is biocompatible because titanium is classified as an inert material and therefore cannot elicit a true immune response.2

C. Biocompatibility is an intrinsic, fixed property of titanium that remains constant regardless of clinical context or patient factors.3

D. The implant may still be considered biocompatible if the inflammatory response is within acceptable limits and the device fulfils its intended clinical function.4

E. Biocompatibility requires complete absence of any measurable host response, so osseointegration alone is insufficient to confirm it.5