JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Bone changes around the maxillary posterior teeth opposing the implants in mandible: a clinical study
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Bone changes around the maxillary posterior teeth opposing the implants in mandible: a clinical study
Park, Chan-Jin; Huh, Yoon-Hyuk; Cho, Lee-Ra;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
Purpose: When the edentulous area is restored by implant prostheses, the opposing hypofunctioned teeth will receive physiologic mechanical stimuli. This study evaluated the bone changes around the maxillary teeth opposing an implant restoration installed in the mandibular posterior area. Materials and Methods: Radiographs of the opposing teeth were taken at prostheses delivery (baseline), 3 and 6 months later. A customized film holding device was fabricated to standardize the projection geometry for the serial radiographs of the opposing teeth. The gray values of the region of interest of each digital image were compared according to time. Repeated measured analysis of variance was performed at the 95% significance level. Results: The gray values of the alveolar bone around the antagonist teeth of implants increased with time. The changes in gray values of the middle area were greater than those of the crestal area. However, the gray values of the mesial and distal areas were not different. The changes in gray values were different according to the unloaded time. Conclusion: A change in bone tissue will occur if a proper physiologic load is again applied to the bone tissues around a hypofunctioned tooth.
 Keywords
hypofunction;implant;bone remodeling;gray value;
 Language
English
 Cited by
 References
1.
Misch CE. Contemporary implant dentistry. 3rd ed. Missouri; CV Mosby; 2007. p. 327-43.

2.
Katz JL. The structure and biomechanics of bone. Symp Soc Exp Biol 1980;34:137-68.

3.
Frost HM. Bone "mass" and the "mechanostat": a proposal. Anat Rec 1987;219:1-9. crossref(new window)

4.
Steflik DE, Noel C, McBrayer C, Lake FT, Parr GR, Sisk AL, Hanes PJ. Histologic observations of bone remodeling adjacent to endosteal dental implants. J Oral Implantol 1995;21:96-106.

5.
Romanos GE, Toh CG, Siar CH, Wicht H, Yacoob H, Nentwig GH. Bone-implant interface around titanium implants under different loading conditions: a histomorphometrical analysis in the Macaca Fascicularis monkeys. J Periodontol 2003;74:1483-90. crossref(new window)

6.
Johnson RB. Effect of altered occlusal function on transseptal ligament and new bone thicknesses in the periodontium of the rat. Am J Anat 1990;187:91-7. crossref(new window)

7.
Kinoshita Y, Tonooka K, Chiba M. The effect of hypofunction on the mechanical properties of the periodontium in the rat mandibular first molar. Arch Oral Biol 1982;27:881-5. crossref(new window)

8.
Shimomoto Y, Chung CJ, Iwasaki-Hayashi Y, Muramoto T, Soma K. Effects of occlusal stimuli on alveolar/jaw bone formation. J Dent Res 2007;86:47-51. crossref(new window)

9.
Motokawa M, Terao A, Karadeniz EI, Kaku M, Kawata T, Matsuda Y, Gonzales C, Darendeliler MA, Tanne K. Effects of long-term occlusal hypofunction and its recovery on the morphogenesis of molar roots and the periodontium in rats. Angle Orthod 2013;83:597-604. crossref(new window)

10.
Jeffcoat MK, Reddy MS, Webber RL, Williams RC, Ruttimann UE. Extraoral control of geometry for digital subtraction radiography. J Periodontal Res 1987;22:369-402.

11.
Meijer HJ, Steen WH, Bosman F. Standardized radiographs of the alveolar crest around implants in the mandible. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68:318-21. crossref(new window)

12.
Marx RE, Ehler WJ, Peleg M. "Mandibular and facial reconstruction" rehabilitation of the head and neck cancer patient. Bone 1996;19:59S-82S. crossref(new window)

13.
Stanford CM. Issues and considerations in dental implant occlusion: what do we know, and what do we need to find out? J Calif Dent Assoc 2005;33:329-36.

14.
Lee MR, Cho LR, Yi YJ, Choi HM, Park CJ. Correlation assessment between resonance frequency analysis and radiographic method according to periimplant bone change. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2005;43:736-44.

15.
Grondahl K, Sunden S, Grondahl HG. Inter- and intraobserver variability in radiographic bone level assessment at Branemark fixtures. Clin Oral Implants Res 1998;9:243-50. crossref(new window)

16.
Jeon PD, Turley PK, Moon HB, Ting K. Analysis of stress in the periodontium of the maxillary first molar with a three-dimensional finite element model. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;115:267-74. crossref(new window)

17.
Carneiro LS, da Cunha HA, Leles CR, Mendonca EF. Digital subtraction radiography evaluation of longitudinal bone density changes around immediate loading implants: a pilot study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012;41:241-7. crossref(new window)