A Bone Quality-Based Implant System

Misch, Carl E.; Hoar, John; Beck, George; Hazen, Ray; Misch, Craig M.

doi:10.1097/00008505-199804000-00004

Cited by 70 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Bone density was presented as the sole jawbone tissue characteristic in 18 publications (Lindh et al 1996a, 1997; Kido et al 1997; Taguchi et al 1997; Misch et al 1999a, 1999b; Homolka et al 2001, 2002; Beer et al 2003; Nkenke et al 2003; Moheng & Feryn 2005; Turkyilmaz et al 2006, 2007a, 2007b, 2008a, 2008b; Gulsahi et al 2007; Yang et al 2008) (Table 8), of which eight were performed on human cadaver jaws. Different classification systems and measurement units were used, such as as the amount of calcium hydroxyapatite expressed in mg/cm 3 (Lindh et al 1996a, 1997; Kido et al 1997; Homolka et al 2001, 2002; Beer et al 2003; Nkenke et al 2003), in g/cm 2 (Gulsahi et al 2007), in percentage of mineralized bone tissue (Lindh et al 1997), in buccal and oral cortical bone volume trabecular bone volume (Nkenke et al 2003), in intertrabecular connectivity (Nkenke et al 2003) or in HU (Taguchi et al 1997; Moheng & Feryn 2005; Turkyilmaz et al 2006, 2007a, 2007b, 2008a, 2008b).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The foundation for five groups of jaw shapes or four groups of bone quality was not discussed. Other classification systems have been proposed to categorize bone quality into two groups (Aalam & Nowzari 2005; Aalam et al 2005), three groups (Friberg et al 1999; Trisi & Rao 1999; Blanes et al 2007) or four groups of bone density (Misch et al 1999a). No such categories were discussed in these publications.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ambiguity in bone tissue characteristics as presented in studies on dental implant planning and placement: a systematic review

Ribeiro-Rotta

Lindh

Pereira

et al. 2010

Clinical Oral Implants Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To survey definitions of bone tissue characteristics and methods of assessing them in studies of dental implant planning and placement.Material and methodology: Three databases were searched using specified indexing terms. Three reviewers selected from the titles and retrieved abstracts in accordance with inclusion and exclusion criteria. Descriptions of bone tissue characteristics (bone quality, density and quantity) used before or during dental implant placement were searched for and categorized.Results: The search yielded 488 titles. One hundred and fort-nine publications were selected and read in full text. One hundred and eight were considered relevant. There were many different definitions and classification systems for bone tissue characteristics and examination protocols. Approximately two-third of the included publications reported the Lekholm & Zarb classification system for bone quality and quantity. However, only four studies implemented the Lekholm & Zarb system as originally proposed. A few publications described bone quality in accordance with the Misch or Trisi and Rao classifications systems. Assessment methods were often described only briefly (or not at all in one-fifth of the publications). Only one study presented the diagnostic accuracy of the assessment method, while only two presented observer performance. Conclusion:The differing definitions and classification systems applied to dental implant planning and placement make it impossible to compare the results of various studies, particularly with respect to whether bone quality or quantity affect treatment outcomes. A consistent classification system for bone tissue characteristics is needed, as well as an appropriate description of bone tissue assessment methods, their diagnostic accuracy and observer performance.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ambiguity in bone tissue characteristics as presented in studies on dental implant planning and placement: a systematic review

Ribeiro-Rotta

Lindh

Pereira

et al. 2010

Clinical Oral Implants Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To avoid high stress/strain in the surrounding bone in the adaptation period, it has been advocated to apply progressive loading on oral implants (Misch et al 1998). In a recent clinical study healed implants were progressively loaded by gradually increasing the height of the occlusal table from a state of infra‐occlusion to full occlusion by adding acrylic resin to an acrylic crown (Appleton et al 2005).…”

Section: Mechanical Load and Bone Healingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of forces on peri‐implant bone

Isidor

2006

Clinical Oral Implants Res

379

255

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Occlusal forces affect an oral implant and the surrounding bone. According to bone physiology theories, bones carrying mechanical loads adapt their strength to the load applied on it by bone modeling/remodeling. This also applies to bone surrounding an oral implant. The response to an increased mechanical stress below a certain threshold will be a strengthening of the bone by increasing the bone density or apposition of bone. On the other hand, fatigue micro-damage resulting in bone resorption may be the result of mechanical stress beyond this threshold. In the present paper literature dealing with the relationship between forces on oral implants and the surrounding bone is reviewed. Randomized controlled as well as prospective cohorts studies were not found. Although the results are conflicting, animal experimental studies have shown that occlusal load might result in marginal bone loss around oral implants or complete loss of osseointegration. In clinical studies an association between the loading conditions and marginal bone loss around oral implants or complete loss of osseointegration has been stated, but a causative relationship has not been shown.

show abstract

“…Peri‐implant tissues are persistently challenged by various hazards. Bacterial plaque (Barboza et al 2002), loading (Misch et al 1999) and prosthetic manipulation (Abrahamsson et al 1997) are factors that may adversely affect the success of an implant. The soft tissue barrier around dental implants serves as a protective barrier between the oral environment and the underlying peri‐implant bone (Welander et al 2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%