LOGIN
 
Share Page:
Back

Volume 19 , Issue 1
January/February 2004

Pages 4451


Sensory Responses from Loading of Implants: A Pilot Study

Saul Weiner, DDS/David Sirois, DMD, PhD/David Ehrenberg, DDS, MS/Neal Lehrmann, DMD/Barry Simon, DDS, MSD/Harry Zohn, DMD


PMID: 14982354

Purpose: Osseointegrated implants lack a periodontal ligament. Nevertheless, masticatory function in subjects with implant-supported restorations appears similar to function in those with natural dentition. It is not clear how the neurophysiologic mechanisms that modulate jaw movement are associated with osseointegrated implants. This study examined the output from the inferior alveolar nerve during implant loading. Materials and Methods: In 3 dogs, 3 premolars were extracted in the mandible and 2 endosseous titanium implants were placed, allowed to osseointegrate for 3 months, and loaded with vibration force at the threshold response for tooth vibration, at 2 threshold, and at 3 threshold. Neurophysiologic recordings were made from the inferior alveolar nerve during loading of both implants and the adjacent molar and canine. The response magnitude in action potentials in the 50- ms poststimulus period and latency of inferior alveolar afferents in milliseconds were compared following implant loading. Results: Detectable inferior alveolar nerve responses were recorded following loading from both the implants and the teeth at 2 and 3 threshold. However, the response magnitude of teeth (canine, 2.38 0.18 at 2, 2.78 0.2 at 3; molar, 2.2 0.16 at 2, 2.5 0.21 at 3) was twice that of the implants (anterior, 1.3 0.12 at 2, 1.68 0.13 at 3; posterior, 0.8 0.1 at 2, 1.53 0.15 at 3). The differences in response magnitude between the teeth and implants were significant (P  .05). The latency of response was similar. Discussion: Management of the occlusion for implant-supported restorations has been empirically developed. An underlying assumption has been that implant-guided jaw function lacks significant proprioception to modulate mastication and related jaw movements. This animal study provides preliminary evidence that force application to implants does elicit a proprioceptive response. Conclusion: Loading of implants does elicit a sensory response that can be observed in the inferior alveolar nerve. The implications are that during occlusal function, information from regions associated with the implant can provide knowledge that could potentially modulate jaw activity in a manner similar to natural teeth. INT J ORAL MAXILLOFAC IMPLANTS 2004;19:4451


Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.

 

© 2014 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc JOMI Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Archive
Author Guidelines
About
Accepted Manuscripts
Submission Form
Submit
Reprints
Permission
Advertising
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us
Help