Advances in Dental Research, Vol 13, 99-119, Copyright © 1999 by International & American Associations for Dental Research

ARTICLES

In vivo bone response to biomechanical loading at the bone/dental-implant interface

J. B. Brunski
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Room 7040, Jonsson Engineering Center, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 110 8th Street, Troy, New York 12180-3590, USA.

Since dental implants must withstand relatively large forces and moments in function, a better understanding of in vivo bone response to loading would aid implant design. The following topics are essential in this problem. (1) Theoretical models and experimental data are available for understanding implant loading as an aid to case planning. (2) At least for several months after surgery, bone healing in gaps between implant and bone as well as in pre-existing damaged bone will determine interface structure and properties. The ongoing healing creates a complicated environment. (3) Recent studies reveal that an interfacial cement line exists between the implant surface and bone for titanium and hydroxyapatite (HA). Since cement lines in normal bone have been identified as weak interfaces, a cement line at a bone-biomaterial interface may also be a weak point. Indeed, data on interfacial shear and tensile "bond" strengths are consistent with this idea. (4) Excessive interfacial micromotion early after implantation interferes with local bone healing and predisposes to a fibrous tissue interface instead of osseointegration. (5) Large strains can damage bone. For implants that have healed in situ for several months before being loaded, data support the hypothesis that interfacial overload occurs if the strains are excessive in interfacial bone. While bone "adaptation" to loading is a long-standing concept in bone physiology, researchers may sometimes be too willing to accept this paradigm as an exclusive explanation of in vivo tissue responses during experiments, while overlooking confounding variables, alternative (non-mechanical) explanations, and the possibility that different types of bone (e.g., woven bone, Haversian bone, plexiform bone) may have different sensitivities to loading under healing vs. quiescent conditions.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. Colnot, D.M. Romero, S. Huang, J. Rahman, J.A. Currey, A. Nanci, J.B. Brunski, and J.A. Helms Molecular Analysis of Healing at a Bone-Implant Interface J. Dent. Res., September 1, 2007; 86(9): 862 - 867. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. M. STANFORD Application of oral implants to the general dental practice J Am Dent Assoc, August 1, 2005; 136(8): 1092 - 1100. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]