Background : Short-term follow-up of masticatory adaptation after rehabilitation with an immediately loaded implant-supported prosthesis: a pilot assessment [1]
Tooth loss represents a major oral disability comparable to an amputation, with severe impairment of oral functions [1]. While denture wearers can rely on mucosal sensors, anchoring prosthetic teeth to the bone via osseointegrated implants has been assumed to create a (partial) sensory substitution for missing periodontal ligament receptors from stimuli transmitted via the bone [2]. The restoration of the sensory feedback pathway is necessary for the physiological integration of implant-supported prostheses in the human body. It helps to optimize essential oral functions, such as chewing and biting. Studies on such functions usually report an improvement of oral functions with implant-supported prostheses as opposed to conventional dentures [3–9]. Improved oral function also impacts on quality of life [10], often scored with ratings for function, pain, discomfort, and psychosocial factors using the GOHAI system [11]. However, one should realize that such rehabilitation may also create some patient-related masticatory and other problems or complications [12]. Such complaints could be related to uncomfortable occlusion, accidental biting of the cheek or tongue, or problems during speech. Other complications might include fractures of prosthetic or implant components. For adequate mastication, the ability to adapt to food of various levels of hardness and various volumes is important. In individuals with natural dentition, such information is processed by the periodontal ligament receptors [13–15]. Since patients with implant-supported prostheses lose the periodontal ligament and its elaborate associated peripheral feedback mechanism, it is possible that they are not able to differentiate food hardness and texture. In this context, it is important to mention that some studies reported no significant improvement of masticatory function after implant treatment [3, 16, 17]. Jacobs et al. [3] indeed noticed that some of these patients might realize that the peripheral feedback mechanism is no longer assisting them, rendering some of them afraid of biting too hard. [3] Instead, these anxious patients are found to bite submaximally with implant-supported prostheses [3].
Serial posts:
- Background : Short-term follow-up of masticatory adaptation after rehabilitation with an immediately loaded implant-supported prosthesis: a pilot assessment [1]
- Background : Short-term follow-up of masticatory adaptation after rehabilitation with an immediately loaded implant-supported prosthesis: a pilot assessment [2]
- Background : Short-term follow-up of masticatory adaptation after rehabilitation with an immediately loaded implant-supported prosthesis: a pilot assessment [3]
- Methods : Short-term follow-up of masticatory adaptation after rehabilitation with an immediately loaded implant-supported prosthesis: a pilot assessment [1]
- Methods : Short-term follow-up of masticatory adaptation after rehabilitation with an immediately loaded implant-supported prosthesis: a pilot assessment [2]
- Methods : Short-term follow-up of masticatory adaptation after rehabilitation with an immediately loaded implant-supported prosthesis: a pilot assessment [3]
- Results : Short-term follow-up of masticatory adaptation after rehabilitation with an immediately loaded implant-supported prosthesis: a pilot assessment [1]
- Results : Short-term follow-up of masticatory adaptation after rehabilitation with an immediately loaded implant-supported prosthesis: a pilot assessment [2]
- Discussion : Short-term follow-up of masticatory adaptation after rehabilitation with an immediately loaded implant-supported prosthesis: a pilot assessment
- Conclusions : Short-term follow-up of masticatory adaptation after rehabilitation with an immediately loaded implant-supported prosthesis: a pilot assessment
- References : Short-term follow-up of masticatory adaptation after rehabilitation with an immediately loaded implant-supported prosthesis: a pilot assessment [1]
- References : Short-term follow-up of masticatory adaptation after rehabilitation with an immediately loaded implant-supported prosthesis: a pilot assessment [2]
- References : Short-term follow-up of masticatory adaptation after rehabilitation with an immediately loaded implant-supported prosthesis: a pilot assessment [3]
- References : Short-term follow-up of masticatory adaptation after rehabilitation with an immediately loaded implant-supported prosthesis: a pilot assessment [4]
- Acknowledgements : Short-term follow-up of masticatory adaptation after rehabilitation with an immediately loaded implant-supported prosthesis: a pilot assessment
- Author information : Short-term follow-up of masticatory adaptation after rehabilitation with an immediately loaded implant-supported prosthesis: a pilot assessment
- Rights and permissions : Short-term follow-up of masticatory adaptation after rehabilitation with an immediately loaded implant-supported prosthesis: a pilot assessment
- About this article : Short-term follow-up of masticatory adaptation after rehabilitation with an immediately loaded implant-supported prosthesis: a pilot assessment
- Fig. 1. Correlation between measured Glucosensor value (mg/dl) (the vertical axis) and applied glucose density (mg/dl) (the horizontal axis) in the in vitro setup. A linear regression line could be applied to the data set, and we tested the accuracy of Glucosensor value : Short-term follow-up of masticatory adaptation after rehabilitation with an immediately loaded implant
- Fig. 2. a Mean and standard deviation (SD) of occlusal contact area at each of the four times. The horizontal label axis was the time stage (1) before implant surgery with the complete denture in situ and (2) right after with provisional implant, (3) 1–2 weeks and (4) 3 months after insertion of the provisional screw-retained restoration, and the label to the vertical axis was contact area (mm2). The occlusal contact area was increased at 3 months after wearing implants (paired t test, p < 0.005). *p < 0.005, significant difference between conditions. b Mean and standard deviation (SD) of bite force at each of the four times. The horizontal label axis was the time stage, and the label to the vertical axis was bite force (N). The approximate maximum bite force was increased at 3 months after wearing implants (paired t test, p < 0.005). *p < 0.005, significant difference between conditions. c Mean and standard deviation (SD) of glucose data at each of the four times. The horizontal label
- Fig. 3. Mean and standard deviation (SD) of percentage of correct answers regarding hardness at each of the four times. The horizontal label axis was the time stage, and the label to the vertical axis was percentage of correct answers regarding hardness (%) : Short-term follow-up of masticatory adaptation after rehabilitation with an immediately loaded implant