Bone healing response in cyclically loaded implants : comparing zero, one, and two loading sessions per day

When bone implants are loaded, they are inevitably subjected to displacement relative to bone. Such micromotion generates stress/strain states at the interface that can cause beneficial or detrimental sequels. The objective of this study is to better understand the mechanobiology of bone healing at the tissue-implant interface during repeated loading. Machined screw shaped Ti implants were placed in rat tibiae in a hole slightly bigger than the implant diameter. Implants were held stable by a specially-designed bone plate that permits controlled loading. Three loading regimens were applied, (a) zero loading, (b) one daily loading session of 60 cycles with an axial force of 1.5 N/cycle for 7 days, and (c) two such daily sessions with the same axial force also for 7 days. Finite element analysis was used to characterize the mechanobiological conditions produced by the loading sessions. After 7 days, the implants with surrounding interfacial tissue were harvested and processed for histological, histomorphometric and DNA microarray analyses. Histomorphometric analyses revealed that the group subjected to repeated loading sessions exhibited a significant decrease in bone-implant contact and increase in bone-implant distance, as compared to unloaded implants and those subjected to only one loading session. Gene expression profiles differed during osseointegration between all groups mainly with respect to inflammatory and unidentified gene categories. The results indicate that increasing the daily cyclic loading of implants induces deleterious changes in the bone healing response, most likely due to the accumulation of tissue damage and associated inflammatory reaction at the bone-implant interface

Are teeth superior to implants? A mapping review

Statement of problem: There is a long-held assumption that teeth are superior to implants because the periodontal ligament (PDL) confers a preeminent defense against biologic and mechanical challenges. However, adequate analysis of the literature is lacking. As a result, differential treatment planning of tooth- and implant-supported restorations has been compromised. Purpose: Given an abundance and diversity of research, the purpose of this mapping review was to identify basic scientific gaps in the knowledge of how teeth and implants respond to biologic and mechanical loads. The findings will offer enhanced evidence-based clinical decision-making when considering replacement of periodontally compromised teeth and the design of implant prostheses. Material and methods: The online databases PubMed, Science Direct, and Web of Science were searched. Published work from 1965 to 2020 was collected and independently analyzed by both authors for inclusion in this review. Results: A total of 108 articles met the inclusion criteria of clinical, in vivo, and in vitro studies in the English language on the periradicular and peri-implant bone response to biologic and mechanical loads. The qualitative analysis found that the PDL\u27s enhanced vascularity, stem cell ability, and resident cells that respond to inflammation allow for a more robust defense against biologic threats compared with implants. While the suspensory PDL acts to mediate moderate loads to the bone, higher compressive stress and strain within the PDL itself can initiate a biologic sequence of osteoclastic activity that can affect changes in the adjacent bone. Conversely, the peri-implant bone is more resistant to similar loads and the threshold for overload is higher because of the absence of a stress or strain sensitivity inherent in the PDL. Conclusions: Based on this mapping review, teeth are superior to implants in their ability to resist biologic challenges, but implants are superior to teeth in managing higher compressive loads without prompting bone resorption

Mechanical and Biological Advantages of a Tri-Oval Implant Design

Of all geometric shapes, a tri-oval one may be the strongest because of its capacity to bear large loads with neither rotation nor deformation. Here, we modified the external shape of a dental implant from circular to tri-oval, aiming to create a combination of high strain and low strain peri-implant environment that would ensure both primary implant stability and rapid osseointegration, respectively. Using in vivo mouse models, we tested the effects of this geometric alteration on implant survival and osseointegration over time. The maxima regions of tri-oval implants provided superior primary stability without increasing insertion torque. The minima regions of tri-oval implants presented low compressive strain and significantly less osteocyte apoptosis, which led to minimal bone resorption compared to the round implants. The rate of new bone accrual was also faster around the tri-oval implants. We further subjected both round and tri-oval implants to occlusal loading immediately after placement. In contrast to the round implants that exhibited a significant dip in stability that eventually led to their failure, the tri-oval implants maintained their stability throughout the osseointegration period. Collectively, these multiscale biomechanical analyses demonstrated the superior in vivo performance of the tri-oval implant design

Mechano-adaptive Responses of Alveolar Bone to Implant Hyper-loading in a pre-clinical in vivo model

Objectives: Oral implants transmit biting forces to peri-implant bone. In turn, those forces subject peri-implant bone to mechanical stresses and strains. Here, our objective was to understand how peri-implant bone responded to conditions of normal versus hyper-loading in a mouse model. Material and Methods: Sixty-six mice were randomly assigned to 2 groups; both groups underwent bilateral maxillary first molar extraction followed by complete healing. Titanium alloy implants were placed in healed sites and positioned below the occlusal plane. After osseointegration, a composite crown was affixed to the implant so masticatory loading would ensue. In controls, the remaining dentition was left intact but in the hyper-loaded (test) group, the remaining molars were extracted. 3D finite element analysis (FEA) calculated peri-implant strains resulting from normal and hyper-loading. Peri-implant tissues were analyzed at multiple time points using micro-computed tomography (µCT) imaging, histology, enzymatic assays of bone remodeling, and vital dye labeling to evaluate bone accrual. Results: Compared to controls, hyper-loaded implants experienced a 3.6-fold increase in occlusal force, producing higher peri-implant strains. Bone formation and resorption were both significantly elevated around hyper-loaded implants, eventually culminating in a significant increase in peri-implant bone volume/total volume (BV/TV). In our mouse model, masticatory hyper-loading of an osseointegrated implant was associated with increased peri-implant strain, increased peri-implant bone remodeling, and a net gain in bone deposition. Conclusion: Hyper-loading results in bone strain with catabolic and anabolic bone responses, leading to a net gain in bone deposition