Structural aspects of the interface between tissue and titanium implants

Ha, Hansson; Albrektsson, Tomas; Pi, Brånemark

doi:10.1016/0022-3913(83)90175-0

Cited by 226 publications

(117 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

111

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Deformation of the palate via loads induced by these implants is more severe given thinner, less biomineralized bone, with the efficacy of implant procedures diminished if palatal bone is not able to counter forces generated by such devices (Gedrange et al, 2001). Disruption and damage of palatal tissues by implants has long-term consequences for craniofacial elasticity and growth (Hansson et al, 1983). Results from this study suggest that the growing palate subjected to surgical intervention and implantation may be modulated via altered mechanical loads.…”

Section: Implications For Evolutionary and Translational Issuesmentioning

confidence: 82%

Phenotypic Plasticity and Function of the Hard Palate in Growing Rabbits

Menegaz

Sublett

Figueroa

et al. 2008

The Anatomical Record

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Morphological variation related to differential loading is well known for many craniomandibular elements. Yet, the function of the hard palate, and in particular the manner in which cortical and trabecular bone of the palate respond to masticatory loads, remains more ambiguous. Here, experimental data are presented that address the naturalistic influence of biomechanical loading on the postweaning development and structure of the hard palate. A rabbit model was used to test the hypothesis that variation in the morphology of the hard palate is linked to variation in masticatory stresses. Rabbit siblings were divided as weanlings into soft and hard/tough dietary treatment groups of 10 subjects each and were raised for 15 weeks until subadulthood. MicroCT analyses indicate that rabbits subjected to elevated masticatory loading developed hard palates with significantly greater bone area, greater cortical bone thickness along the oral lamina, and thicker anterior palates. Such diet-induced levels of palatal plasticity are comparable to those for other masticatory elements, which likely reflect osteogenic responses for maintaining the functional integrity of the palate vis-à -vis elevated stresses during unilateral mastication. These data support a role for mechanical loading in the determination of palatal morphology, especially its internal structure, in living and fossil mammals such as the hominin Paranthropus. Furthermore, these findings have potential implications for the evolution of the mammalian secondary hard palate as well as for clinical considerations of human oral pathologies.

show abstract

Section: Implications For Evolutionary and Translational Issuesmentioning

confidence: 82%

Phenotypic Plasticity and Function of the Hard Palate in Growing Rabbits

Menegaz

Sublett

Figueroa

et al. 2008

The Anatomical Record

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This prevents downgrowth, often termed marsupialisation or pocket formation. In downgrowth, the epidermal tissues grow down around the implant, separating it from the surrounding tissues, causing mechanical instability (Hansson et al, 1983). The pocket that is formed allows bacterial colonisation leading to an increased risk of infection.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intraosseous transcutaneous amputation prostheses versus dental implants: A comparison between keratinocyte and gingival epithelial cell adhesion in vitro

Pendegrass

Lancashire²,

Fontaine³

et al. 2015

eCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Infection is the primary failure modality for transcutaneous implants because the skin breach provides a route for pathogens to enter the body. Intraosseous transcutaneous amputation prostheses (ITAP) are being developed to overcome this problem by creating a seal at the skinimplant interface. Oral gingival epithelial cell attachment creates an infection-free seal around dental implants. However, this has yet to be achieved consistently outside of the oral environment. Epithelial cells attach to metal substrates by means of hemidesmosomes and focal adhesions. Their density per unit cell is an indicator of attachment strength. We postulate that gingival epithelial cells express more hemidesmosomes and focal adhesions at earlier time points, compared with epidermal keratinocytes, and this increased speed and strength of attachment may be the reason why an infection-free seal is often achieved around dental implants but less frequently around ITAP. The aim of this study was to compare epidermal keratinocyte with oral gingival cell attachment on titanium alloy in vitro, to determine whether these two cell types differ in their speed and strength of attachment. We aimed to test the hypothesis that gingival cells up-regulate focal adhesion and hemidesmosome formation at earlier time points compared with extra-oral keratinocytes. To test this hypothesis we cultured epidermal keratinocytes and oral gingival cells on titanium alloy substrates and assessed cell attachment by focal adhesions and hemidesmosome expression at 4, 24, 48 and 72 hours. Formation and expression of hemidesmosomes temporally lagged behind that of focal adhesions in both cell types. Gingival derived cells up-regulated focal adhesion and hemidesmosome expression at earlier time points compared with epidermal keratinocytes. Hemidesmosome expression in oral gingival cells was 3 times greater compared with epidermal keratinocytes at 4 hours. Our findings indicate that earlier attachment may be key to the success of the dental implant transcutaneous interface.

show abstract

“…The biocompatibility comprises the absence of corrosion and material wearing that may lead to undesirable inflammatory responses, death of surrounding tissues or thrombus formations by unexpected coagulation effects. It also implies for the living organism not to produce undesirable immunological responses such as an increase in antibody counting, cell mutations or formation of cancer cells Aparicio (2005); Hansson et al (1983);Ratner et al (1996). Besides the implant characteristics, the insertion procedure has been shown to be of importance in the success of the prosthetic unit.…”

Section: Dental Implants 21 the Bone-dental Implant Interfacementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The formation of a new bone matrix in this interface allows the firm and long lasting connection between the bone and the implant in a process called osseointegration Albrektsson & Johansson (2001); Branemark (1983). The success of this contact depends on the restoration of the functional tissues around the implant providing it with mechanical support and anchorage Gapski et al (2003); Hansson et al (1983). This tissue restoration is conditioned to cell migration, cell proliferation and cell differentiation phenomena depending on the pathological conditions of the patient, the biological conditions of the host bone, the implant design and surface topography, and the distribution of mechanical loads between the bone and the implant Aukhil (2000); Ellingsen et al (2006); Sikavitsas et al (2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%