Bite force and dental implant treatment: a short review

Abstract

Dental implants are placed endosseously, and the bone is the ultimate bearer of the occlusal load. Patients are not uniform in the maximum bite force they can generate. The occlusal biting load in the posterior jaw is usually about three times of that found in the anterior. It is possible for supporting implants to be overloaded by the patients’ biting force, resulting in bone loss and failure of the fixture. Bite force measurement may be an important parameter when planning dental implant treatment. Some patients can generate extreme biting loads that may cause a luxation of the fixture and subsequent loss of osseointegration. A patient with low biting force may be able to have a successful long-term outcome even with poor anatomical bone qualities. Patients with a high bite force capability may have an increased risk for late component fracture or implant failure. There is no correlation of any bite force value that would indicate any overload of a given implant in a given osseous site. Nonetheless, after bite force measurement, a qualitative judgement may be made by the clinician for the selection of an implant diameter and length and prosthetic design.

Comparison of immediate‐load mini dental implants and conventional‐size dental implants to retain mandibular Kennedy class I removable partial dentures: A randomized clinical trial

“…39 Bar graph showing mean patient satisfaction score in terms of comfort, retention, and chewing performance before and after treatment The key success factors in this study were high primary stability and a good maintenance program. 39 Bar graph showing mean patient satisfaction score in terms of comfort, retention, and chewing performance before and after treatment The key success factors in this study were high primary stability and a good maintenance program.…”

Analysis of implant loss risk factors especially in maxillary molar location: A retrospective study of 6977 implants in Chinese individuals

“…The cumulative survival rate for maxillary molar implants was the lowest (96.09%) compared with other groups, which indicating that the maxillary molar location could be considered as a risk factor for implant loss. This phenomenon might be attributed to the lower bone quality (score 3‐4), insufficient bone volume and higher bite force in the maxillary molar location . Due to the insufficient bone volume caused by the expanded maxillary sinus, bone grafting procedures were sometimes needed, especially in an atrophic posterior maxilla with a 4 mm or less residual crestal bone height .…”

“…Meanwhile, the cumulative survival rates for maxillary molar implants were significantly different between the grafted (94.98%) and non‐grafted (97.89%) groups, demonstrating that the bone grafting procedure could be one of the risk factors for maxillary molar implant loss. Furthermore, the bite force in the posterior jaw was about three times than that in the anterior location, thus implants in maxillary molar location might suffer from higher risk of osseointegration loss …”

“…This phenomenon might be attributed to the lower bone quality (score 3-4), insufficient bone volume and higher bite force in the maxillary molar location. 8,14,15 Due to the insufficient bone volume caused by the expanded maxillary sinus, bone grafting procedures were sometimes needed, especially in an atrophic posterior maxilla with a 4 mm or less residual crestal bone height. 14,16 Meanwhile, the cumulative survival rates for maxillary molar implants were significantly different between the grafted (94.98%) and non-grafted (97.89%) groups, demonstrating that the bone grafting procedure could be one of the risk factors for maxillary molar implant loss.…”

“…Significant differences were shown in gender and implant length according to log-rank test implants in maxillary molar location might suffer from higher risk of osseointegration loss. 15 Except for implant location, implant length was considered as a risk factor for implant loss as well. 8 Our results revealed that the cumulative survival rate for implants shorter than 10 mm (96.93%) was significantly lower than longer implants (97.97%), which reason might be the disadvantage of initial stability and the increased risk for micromotion during healing period for short implants.…”