In oral implantology, a 3-6 month stress-free healing period is presently accepted as a prerequisite to achieve bone apposition without interposition of a fibrous scar tissue. This protocol was introduced by Brånemark and co-workers in 1977. The aim of the present paper is to review the reasons that led Brånemark and collaborators to require long delayed loading periods. It is shown that the requirement for long delayed loading periods was drawn from the initiation and development periods of their original clinical trial. Demanding conditions were met involving simultaneously: 1) patients with poor bone quality and quantity, 2) non-optimized implant design, 3) short implants, 4) non-optimized surgical placement, 5) non-optimized surgical protocol and 6) biomechanically non-optimized prosthesis. Extrapolation of the requirement for long healing periods from these particular conditions to more standard situations involving refined surgical protocols and careful patient selection might be questioned. Albeit premature loading has been interpreted as inducing fibrous tissue interposition, immediate loading per se is not responsible for fibrous encapsulation. It is the excess of micromotion during the healing phase that interferes with bone repair. A threshold of tolerated micromotion exists, that is somewhere between 50 microns and 150 microns. It is suggested that loading protocols might be shortened through 2 different approaches. The first way would be to decrease stepwise the delayed loading period for free-standing implants below the presently accepted 3-6 months of healing. The second way would be to identify immediate loading protocols that are capable of keeping the amount of micromotion beneath the threshold of deleterious micromotion. Immediate loading protocols for implants-retained overdentures and fixed bridges are reviewed. It is shown that successful premature loading protocols require a careful and strict patient selection aimed to achieve the best primary stability. These various protocols need to be further documented in order to assess their predictability.
Within the limitation of the present study, the peri-implant soft tissue color appears to be different from the soft tissue color around natural teeth, no matter which type of restorative material is selected. When titanium abutment was selected, significantly higher differences were present than those obtained with gold or zirconia abutments. The thickness of the peri-implant soft tissue did not appear to be a crucial factor in the abutment impact on the soft tissue color.
Osseointegration (new bone-to-implant contact) developed at various rates for cortical and trabecular compartments, respectively. In the trabecular region, mesenchymal cells were identified, subsequently developing into new bone in contact with the implant surface. In the cortical compartment, however, resorptive processes were observed throughout all periods of healing. The proportion of newly formed bone percentage was lower compared with that of the trabecular area. Old bone was still present after 1 month of healing in both compartments. Bone debris and small bone particles appeared to be involved in initial bone formation.
The augmented sinuses in this study that exhibited MSMPs that occurred during the SAP (which were treated during surgery) show SS greater vital bone percentages compared with the non-perforated sinus group. There were no SS differences in implant survival in the perforated versus non-perforated groups. In this study, sinus MSMPs, when properly repaired during surgery, do not appear to be an adverse complication in terms of vital bone production or implant survival.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.