Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Response of the Bone and the Implant to Loading

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Oral and Cranial Implants

  • 1649 Accesses

Abstract

Minimising the interfacial forces between implant and bone is essential to implant success. This is especially important in situations such as the cantilevered implant-supported prosthesis where the loads are increased two- or threefold compared with those stresses detected on a single implant (McAlarney and Stavropoulos 1996; Osier 1991). Excessive loading can cause bone resorption, screw fracture and implant loss. Cantilevered implant-supported prostheses allow restoration of an edentulous space particularly where insufficient bone exists for implant placement. Where the pontic size is small (of the size of a premolar tooth) and protected in lateral excursive movements, the evidence from the published literature is that these cantilevered restorations have an excellent success rate. For example, in a systematic review by Aglietta et al. (2009), the 10-year survival for implant-supported cantilevered restorations was 88.9 % (95 % CI = 70.8–96.1 %), which is comparable to tooth-supported bridges.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aglietta M, Siciliano VI, Zwahlen M, Brägger U, Pjetursson BE, Lang NP, Salvi GE (2009) A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant supported fixed dental prostheses with cantilever extensions after an observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 20(5):441–451

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Alghamdi H, Anand PS, Anil S (2011) Undersized implant site preparation to enhance primary implant stability in poor bone density: a prospective clinical study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 69:e506–e512

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Andreiotelli M, Att W, Strub JR (2010) Prosthodontic complications with implant overdentures: a systematic literature review. Int J Prosthodont 23(3):195–203

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Annibali S, Cristalli MP, Dell’aquila D, Bignozzi I, La Monaca G, Pilloni A (2012) Short dental implants: a systematic review. J Dent Res 91:25–32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bell KL, Loveridge N, Jordan GR et al (2000) A novel mechanism for induction of increased cortical porosity in cases of intracapsular hip fracture. Bone 27:297–304

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buser D, Weber HP, Bragger U, Balsiger C (1991) Tissue integration of one-stage ITI implants: 3-year results of a longitudinal study with Hollow-Cylinder and Hollow-Screw implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 6:405–12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Degidi M, Daprile G, Piattelli A (2010) Determination of primary stability: a comparison of the surgeon’s perception and objective measurements. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 25:558–561

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Devlin H, Horner K (2007) A study to assess the relative influence of age and edentulousness upon mandibular bone mineral density in female subjects. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 104:117–121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ellegaard B, Baelum V, Karring T (1997) Implant therapy in periodontally compromised patients. Clin Oral Implants Res 8:180–188

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Chew YS, Coulthard P, Worthington HV (2009) Interventions for replacing missing teeth: 1- versus 2-stage implant placement. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Issue 3. Art. no.: CD006698. doi: 10.1002/14651858. CD006698. pub2

  • Esposito M, Cannizzaro G, Bozzoli P, Checchi L, Ferri V, Landriani S, Leone M, Todisco M, Torchio C, Testori T, Galli F, Felice P (2010) Effectiveness of prophylactic antibiotics at placement of dental implants: a ­pragmatic multicentre placebo-controlled randomised clinical trial. Eur J Oral Implantol 3:135–143

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ewers R, Seemann R, Krennmair G, Schicho K, Kurdi AO, Kirsch A, Reichwein A (2010) Planning implants crown down – a systematic quality control for proof of concept. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 68(11):2868–2878

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Friberg B, Jemt T, Lekholm U (1991) Early failures in 4,641 consecutively placed Brånemark dental implants: a study from stage 1 surgery to the connection of completed prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 6:142–146

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Friberg B, Ekestubbe A, Mellström D, Sennerby L (2001) Brånemark implants and osteoporosis: a clinical exploratory study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 3:50–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fuster-Torres MÁ, Peñarrocha-Diago M, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Peñarrocha-Diago M (2011) Relationships between bone density values from cone beam computed tomography, maximum insertion torque, and resonance frequency analysis at implant placement: a pilot study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 26:1051–1056

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gahlert M, Roehling S, Sprecher CM, Kniha H, Milz S, Bormann K (2012) In vivo performance of zirconia and titanium implants: a histomorphometric study in mini pig maxillae. Clin Oral Implants Res 23:281–286

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gomes de Oliveira RC, Leles CR, Lindh C, Ribeiro-Rotta RF (2012) Bone tissue microarchitectural characteristics at dental implant sites. Part 1: identification of clinical-related parameters. Clin Oral Implants Res 23(8):981–986. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02243.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grössner-Schreiber B, Griepentrog M, Haustein I, Müller WD, Lange KP, Briedigkeit H, Göbel UB (2001) Plaque formation on surface modified dental implants. An in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res 12:543–551

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grössner-Schreiber B, Teichmann J, Hannig M, Dörfer C, Wenderoth DF, Ott SJ (2009) Modified implant surfaces show different biofilm compositions under in vivo conditions. Clin Oral Implants Res 20:817–826

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gynther GW, Köndell PA, Moberg LE, Heimdahl A (1998) Dental implant installation without antibiotic prophylaxis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 85:509–511

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hutton JE, Heath MR, Chai JY et al (1995) Factors related to success and failure rates at 3 year follow up in a multicenter study of overdentures supported by Brånemark implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 10:33–42

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jang HW, Kang JK, Lee K, Lee YS, Park PK (2011) A ­retrospective study on related factors affecting the survival rate of dental implants. J Adv Prosthodont 3:204–215

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kacer CM, Dyer JD, Kraut RA (2010) Immediate loading of dental implants in the anterior and posterior mandible: a retrospective study of 120 cases. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 68:2861–2867

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kamposiora P, Papavasiliou G, Madianos P (2012) Presentation of two cases of immediate restoration of implants in the esthetic region, using facilitate software and guides with stereolithographic model surgery prior to patient surgery. J Prosthodont 21:130–137

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman JJ, Luo G, Siffert RS (2007) A portable real-time ultrasonic bone densitometer. Ultrasound Med Biol 33:1445–1452

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lambert FE, Weber HP, Susarla SM, Belser UC, Gallucci GO (2009) Descriptive analysis of implant and prosthodontic survival rates with fixed implant-supported rehabilitations in the edentulous maxilla. J Periodontol 80(8):1220–1230

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Laskin DM, Dent CD, Morris HF, Ochi S, Olson JW (2000) The influence of preoperative antibiotics on success of endosseous implants at 36 months. Ann Periodontol 5:166–174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson MC, Hoth KC, Deforest CA, Bowman CN, Anseth KS (2010) Inhibition of Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilms using polymerizable vancomycin derivatives. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:2081–2091

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lee S, Gantes B, Riggs M, Crigger M (2007) Bone density assessments of dental implant sites: 3. Bone quality evaluation during osteotomy and implant placement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 22:208–212

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lekholm U (1992) The Branemark implant technique: a standardized procedure under continuous development. In: Laney WR, Tolman DF (eds) Tissue integration in oral, orthopedic and maxillofacial reconstruction. Quintessence, Chicago, pp 194–199

    Google Scholar 

  • Lekholm U, Zarb GA (1985) Patient selection and preparation. In: Brǻnemark P-I, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T (eds) Tissue-integrated prosthesis: osseointegration in clinical dentistry. Quintessence, Chicago, pp 199–209

    Google Scholar 

  • Liao KY, Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K, Lozada JL, Herford AS, Goodacre CJ (2010) Immediate loading of two freestanding implants retaining a mandibular overdenture: 1-year pilot prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 25:784–790

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lin CL, Wang JC, Ramp LC, Liu PR (2008) Biomechanical response of implant systems placed in the maxillary posterior region under various conditions of ­angulation, bone density, and loading. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 23:57–64

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liu Y, de Groot K, Hunziker EB (2005) BMP-2 liberated from biomimetic implant coatings induces and sustains direct ossification in an ectopic rat model. Bone 36:745–757

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Malo P, Nobre M, Lopes A (2011) The rehabilitation of completely edentulous maxillae with different degrees of resorption with four or more immediately loaded implants: a 5-year retrospective study and a new classification. Eur J Oral Implantol 4:227–243

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mathieu V, Anagnostou F, Soffer E, Haiat G (2011) Numerical simulation of ultrasonic wave propagation for the evaluation of dental implant biomechanical stability. J Acoust Soc Am 129:4062–4072

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McAlarney ME, Stavropoulos DN (1996) Determination of cantilever length-anterior-posterior spread ratio assuming failure criteria to be the compromise of the prosthesis retaining screw-prosthesis joint. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 11(3):331–339

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moy PK, Medina D, Shetty V, Aghaloo TL (2005) Dental implant failure rates and associated risk factors. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 20(4):569–577

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nackaerts O, Maes F, Yan H, Couto Souza P, Pauwels R, Jacobs R (2011) Analysis of intensity variability in multislice and cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res 22:873–879

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ohta K, Takechi M, Minami M, Shigeishi H, Hiraoka M, Nishimura M, Kamata N (2010) Influence of factors related to implant stability detected by wireless resonance frequency analysis device. J Oral Rehabil 37:131–137

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ojeda J, Martínez-Reina J, García-Aznar JM, Domínguez J, Doblaré M (2011) Numerical simulation of bone remodelling around dental implants. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 225:897–906

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Osier JF (1991) Biomechanical load analysis of cantilevered implant systems. J Oral Implantol 17(1):40–47

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Quirynen M, Bollen CM, Eyssen H, van Steenberghe D (1994) Microbial penetration along the implant components of the Branemark System. An in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res 5:239–244

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ritter L, Reiz SD, Rothamel D, Dreiseidler T, Karapetian V, Scheer M, Zöller JE (2012) Registration accuracy of three-dimensional surface and cone beam computed tomography data for virtual implant planning. Clin Oral Implants Res 23:447–452

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts M, Yuan J, Graham J, Jacobs R, Devlin H (2011) Changes in mandibular cortical width measurements with age in men and women. Osteoporos Int 22:1915

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roe P, Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K, Lozada JL (2011) Immediate loading of unsplinted implants in the ­anterior mandible for overdentures: 3-year results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 26:1296–1302

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi F, Zavanelli AC, Zavanelli RA (2011) Photoelastic comparison of single tooth implant-abutment bone of platform switching vs conventional implant designs. J Contemp Dent Pract 12:124–130

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Scarano A, Piattelli M, Vrespa G, Caputi S, Piattelli A (2003) Bacterial adhesion on titanium nitride-coated and uncoated implants: an in vivo human study. J Oral Implantol 29:80–85

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Scarano A, Piattelli M, Caputi S, Favero GA, Piattelli A (2004) Bacterial adhesion on commercially pure titanium and zirconium oxide disks: an in vivo human study. J Periodontol 75:292–296

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schliephake H, Neukam FW, Wichmann M (1997) Survival analysis of endosseous implants in bone grafts used for the treatment of severe alveolar ridge atrophy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 55:1227–1234

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Seong WJ, Kim HC, Jeong S, DeVeau DL, Aparicio C, Li Y, Hodges JS (2011) Ex vivo mechanical properties of dental implant bone cement used to rescue initially unstable dental implants: a rabbit study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 26:826–836

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sharaf B, Jandali-Rifai M, Susarla SM, Dodson TB (2011) Do perioperative antibiotics decrease implant failure? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 69:2345–2350

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tabata LF, Rocha EP, Barão VA, Assunção WG (2011) Platform switching: biomechanical evaluation using three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 26:482–491

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Telleman G, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, den Hartog L, Huddleston Slater JJ, Meijer HJ (2011) A systematic review of the prognosis of short (<10 mm) dental implants placed in the partially edentulous patient. J Clin Periodontol 38:667–676

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Termine N, Panzarella V, Ciavarella D, Lo Muzio L, D’Angelo M, Sardella A, Compilato D, Campisi G (2009) Antibiotic prophylaxis in dentistry and oral surgery: use and misuse. Int Dent J 59:263–270

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Turkyilmaz I, Tözüm TF, Tumer C, Ozbek EN (2006) Assessment of correlation between computerized tomography values of the bone, and maximum torque and resonance frequency values at dental implant placement. J Oral Rehabil 33:881–888

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Weng D, Jacobson Z, Tarnow D, Hürzeler MB, Faehn O, Sanavi F, Barkvoll P, Stach RM (2003) A prospective multicenter clinical trial of 3i machined-surface implants: results after 6 years of follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 18(3):417–423

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zix J, Hug S, Kessler-Liechti G, Mericske-Stern R (2008) Measurement of dental implant stability by resonance frequency analysis and damping capacity assessment: comparison of both techniques in a clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 23:525–530

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Dentistry, University of Manchester, Higher Cambridge St, M15 6FH, Manchester, UK

    Hugh Devlin

Authors
  1. Hugh Devlin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hugh Devlin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Dentistry, University of Manchester, Higher Cambridge Street, Manchester, M15 6FH, United Kingdom

    Hugh Devlin

  2. School of Dentistry, University of California Los Angeles, Le Conte Ave 10833, Los Angeles, 90095-1668, California, USA

    Ichiro Nishimura

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Devlin, H. (2013). The Response of the Bone and the Implant to Loading. In: Devlin, H., Nishimura, I. (eds) Oral and Cranial Implants. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34225-7_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34225-7_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-34224-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-34225-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation