Advertisement

Biological Communications Between Implants and Periodontal Tissues

  • Itzhak BindermanEmail author
  • Michal Halperin-Sternfeld
Dental Restorative Materials (M Özcan and P Cesar, Section Editor)
  • 2 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Dental Restorative Materials

Abstract

Purpose of Review

At present, attention is directed to increase the bone to implant contact (BIC) and minimize the marginal bone loss by modifying the root part of titanium implant using chemical and texture surface treatments. In the present review, we evaluate to what extent the titanium implant surface treatments are targeted to achieve biological attachment and connectivity similar to ankylosed teeth.

Recent Findings

We find that the re-implanted tooth that undergoes ankylosis to alveolar bone and re-attachment of marginal gingiva by cellular and fibrous biological connectivity is a desirable model to seek similar implant attachment to the periodontium. In fact, the root part of the implant that is undergoing osseointegration resembles direct deposition of bone onto tooth cementum. It seems that activating cellular attachment of soft connective tissue of marginal gingiva is less predictable and needs the application of nano technologies to enhance attraction of these cells to the trans-gingival connector. Such cellular physiologically strained attachment will develop normal communicative pathways between implant and periodontium.

Summary

This paper provides a new perspective on the model that should guide the development of future dental implants. Surface modifications of implants should facilitate their attachment both to the alveolar bone and the marginal gingiva, mimicking the physiological process involved in re-implanted teeth.

Keywords

Osseointegration Implant communication Surface modification Re-implantation 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Stern IB. Current concepts of the dentogingival junction: the epithelial and connective tissue attachments to the tooth. J Periodontol. 1981;52:465–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tenshin S, Tuchihashi M, Sou K, Lew HS, Hayashi H, Tanimura I, et al. Remodeling mechanisms of transseptal fibers during and after tooth movement. Angle Orthod. 1995;65:141–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Binderman I, Bahar H, Yaffe A. Strain relaxation of fibroblasts in the marginal periodontium is the common trigger for alveolar bone resorption: a novel hypothesis. J Periodontol. 2002;73:1210–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hashimoto D, Chow A, Noizat C, Teo P, Beasley MB, Leboeuf M, et al. Tissue-resident macrophages self-maintain locally throughout adult life with minimal contribution from circulating monocytes. Immunity. 2013;38:792–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ingber DE, Wang N, Stamenovic D. Tensegrity, cellular biophysics, and the mechanics of living systems. Rep Prog Phys. 2014;77:046603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    •• Binderman I, Gadban N, Yaffe A. Extracellular ATP is a key modulator of alveolar bone loss in periodontitis. Arch Oral Biol. 2017;81:131–5 This article suggests that the connectivity between the root cementum and the marginal gingiva is key in protecting the normal structure and contour of the alveolar crest bone. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Albrektsson TO, Johansson CB, Sennerby L. Biological aspects of implant dentistry: osseointegration. Periodontol. 1994;4:58–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Messias A, Nicolau P, Guerra F. Titanium dental implants with different collar design and surface modifications: a systematic review on survival rates and marginal bone levels. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019;30:20–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rupp F, Liang L, Geis-Gerstorfer J, Scheideler L, Huttig F. Surface characteristics of dental implants: a review. Dent Mater. 2018;34:40–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gordon S, Taylor PR. Monocyte and macrophage heterogeneity. Nat Rev Immunol. 2005;5:953–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Branemark PI, Hansson BO, Adell R, Breine U, Lindstrom J, Hallen O, et al. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-year period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Suppl. 1977;16:1–132.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    •• Albrektsson T, Chrcanovic B, Jacobsson M, Wennerberg A. Osseointegration of implants: a biological and clinical overview. JSM Dent Surg. 2017;2:1022 This article highlights the effect of the implant surface on osseointegration. Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hotchkiss KM, Reddy GB, Hyzy SL, Schwartz Z, Boyan BD, Olivares-Navarrete R. Titanium surface characteristics, including topography and wettability, alter macrophage activation. Acta Biomater. 2016;31:425–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hotchkiss KM, Ayad NB, Hyzy SL, Boyan BD, Olivares-Navarrete R. Dental implant surface chemistry and energy alter macrophage activation in vitro. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28:414–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wang Y, Zhang Y, Sculean A, Bosshardt DD, Miron RJ. Macrophage behavior and interplay with gingival fibroblasts cultured on six commercially available titanium, zirconium, and titanium-zirconium dental implants. Clin Oral Investig. 2019;23:3219–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Glenn JD, Whartenby KA. Mesenchymal stem cells: emerging mechanisms of immunomodulation and therapy. World J Stem Cells. 2014;6:526–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kovach TK, Dighe AS, Lobo PI, Cui Q. Interactions between MSCs and immune cells: implications for bone healing. J Immunol Res. 2015;2015:752510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ogle ME, Segar CE, Sridhar S, Botchwey EA. Monocytes and macrophages in tissue repair: implications for immunoregenerative biomaterial design. Exp Biol Med. 2016;241:1084–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Spiller KL, Nassiri S, Witherel CE, Anfang RR, Ng J, Nakazawa KR, et al. Sequential delivery of immunomodulatory cytokines to facilitate the M1-to-M2 transition of macrophages and enhance vascularization of bone scaffolds. Biomaterials. 2015;37:194–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pajarinen J, Lin T, Gibon E, Kohno Y, Maruyama M, Nathan K, et al. Mesenchymal stem cell-macrophage crosstalk and bone healing. Biomaterials. 2019;196:80–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. On osseointegration in relation to implant surfaces. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019;21(Suppl 1):4–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Trindade R, Albrektsson T, Galli S, Prgomet Z, Tengvall P, Wennerberg A. Osseointegration and foreign body reaction: titanium implants activate the immune system and suppress bone resorption during the first 4 weeks after implantation. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018;20:82–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lotz EM, Olivares-Navarrete R, Berner S, Boyan BD, Schwartz Z. Osteogenic response of human MSCs and osteoblasts to hydrophilic and hydrophobic nanostructured titanium implant surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2016;104:3137–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Groisman M, Schwartz O, Andreasen JO, Attstrom R. Supra-alveolar periodontal healing of auto- and allotransplanted teeth in monkeys. Endod Dent Traumatol. 1989;5:227–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Binderman I, Gadban N, Bahar H, Herman A, Yaffe A. Commentary on: periodontally accelerated osteogenic orthodontics (PAOO) - a clinical dilemma. Int Orthod. 2010;8:268–77.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Oral Biology, The Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Sackler Faculty of MedicineTel Aviv UniversityTev AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations