Part 2 – Osseointegration - The Testing Years ES/EN

septiembre 25, 2017

Part 2 – Osseointegration - The Testing Years ES/EN

Español | English

1982 was a huge turning point for Brånemark and it was a point that he had been working towards for the past 17 years. This included 15 years of clinical follow-up trials. Yet despite the hugely positive results, he was reluctant to present his findings to the public at the Toronto conference, because he felt quite simply, that the world still wasn't ready for dental implants. However, during the past 17 years, Brånemark and his team had been busy... very busy!

Despite placing the first dental implants into an edentulous patient a few months earlier in 1965, Brånemark understood that it wasn't enough. If he was going to convince the sceptics, and there were plenty of them, he knew he needed cold hard evidence of myriad proportions. So rather than sit back and reflect on his achievements, Brånemark embarked on what was then one of the longest clinical trials in dental history.

During the 15 year trial carried out between 1965 and 1980, a total of 2768 implants were placed in 410 edentulous jaws of 371 consecutive patients. All patients were fitted with removable bridges and were examined at yearly intervals thereafter. In 405 of the 410 patients, bridges were attached to implants via an abutment, and only in the remaining 5 jaws could treatment not be completed. This was either due to patient death or for psychiatric reasons. In 34 of the patients, bone-anchored bridges were placed into both the upper and lower jaws and while the mean age of a patient was 53, the gender split was 62% female and 38% male. This lengthy clinical trial allowed Brånemark to lay down some important time periods which helped to document the evolution of dental implants. They were...

    • The initial trial period from July 1965 – March 1968 when experimental studies still needed to be introduced into clinical situations
    • The developmental period between April 1968 and June 1971 where certain modifications in methodology were introduced as further analysis was being carried out

and finally...

    • The routine period between July 1971 and August 1980 where only minor technical adjustments were needed.

By 1980, after placing over 2700 dental implants into the mouths of edentulous patients Brånemark and his team had not only built the template for the fitting of dental implants but over a period of 15 years, had honed it to perfection. So much so in fact that the same basic principles are still in use today.

The findings

While results based on observation times of less than one year were regarded as clinically insignificant, that still left 1997 fixtures placed in 172 lower and 146 upper jaws of 284 patients. Of those....

    • In upper jaws, 81% of implants remained stable after 5-9 years of observations, while continuous bridge stability was achieved in 89% of these cases.
    • In lower jaws, 91% of implants remained stable after the same period, while continual dental bridge stability was maintained in 100% of cases.
    • During the healing period, the mean bone loss was 1.5mm but this decreased to 0.1mm after 5-9 years and in all routine cases (277 patients), the surrounding bone tissue remained healthy for follow-up periods of up to 15 years.

So how significant are these findings?

You have to remember that as late as 1974 implant treatment outcomes were seen as very erratic. The success rates for other implant systems for example reportedly ranged from just 39%-66% after 10 years. This was enough for the American Dental Association (ADA) to take the position not to recommend dental implants as normal clinical practice.  

However, four years later in 1978, a conference at Harvard University identified both the risks and benefits of dental implant surgery and laid down established standards, many of which are still in force today. The results of Brånemark's 15-year clinical tests not only fell within these acceptable standards but far exceeded them.

So, finally in 1982, after years of resistance from sceptics, he was armed with the cold hard data he needed to prove to the world that dental implants were, in fact, a predictable and best long-term strategy for the replacement of failing or missing teeth. From that point on, the dental industry and the hopes of many people changed, and much of it was down to the work of one man -  Per-Ingvar Brånemark!

In the next and final part, we'll take a look at continued ongoing testing and what the findings show for dental implants and osseointegration in the future.

Ver artículo completo

Autologous Bone Grafting Alternatives In Spinal Fusion Surgery
Autologous Bone Grafting Alternatives In Spinal Fusion Surgery

febrero 08, 2018

The search for the best alternative bone graft substitutes has stepped up over the last few years. There are an overwhelming amount of alternatives that can be used either as enhancement or substitute for autologous bone including allografts, platelet gels, and ceramics.

Ver artículo completo

The Importance Of Considering Bite Force In Prosthetic Case Planning And Implant Selection
The Importance Of Considering Bite Force In Prosthetic Case Planning And Implant Selection

enero 24, 2018

Being able to properly chew foods is something that the majority of us take for granted, yet for many who are missing several or more teeth, the reality is that this simple task is often a struggle.

Bite force and dental implant treatment: a short review. Flanagan D.  Medical Devices (Auckland, NZ). 2017;10:141-148. doi:10.2147/MDER.S130314.

Ver artículo completo

Dentofacial Aesthetics and The Link Between Malocclusions, Quality of Life, and Self-Esteem
Dentofacial Aesthetics and The Link Between Malocclusions, Quality of Life, and Self-Esteem

diciembre 12, 2017

If you ask any group of people about the factors that make up a pleasing facial appearance, they'll probably give you a million different answers. However, in spite of the many minor incidentals, there appears to be an overriding set of principles that most people do agree on.

Craniodentofacial characteristics, dental esthetics–related quality of life, and self-esteem. Anja Gavric, Dubravka Mirceta, Mario Jakobovic, Andrej Pavlic, Magda Trinajstic Zrinski, Stjepan Spalj. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Volume 147, Issue 6, June 2015, Pages 711-718.

Ver artículo completo