our online journals are moving. The new (and old) issues of all journals can be found at
In most cases you can log in there directly with your e-mail address and your current password. Otherwise we ask you to register again. Thank you very much.
Your Quintessence Publishing House
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 35 (2020), No. 1 27. Jan. 2020
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 35 (2020), No. 1 (27.01.2020)
Page 25-38, doi:10.11607/jomi.6281, PubMed:31923287
The Influence of Progressive Static Load on the Ability of Dental Implants to Withstand Overloading Forces: An Experimental Study in Dogs
Podaropoulos, Leonidas / Trisi, Paolo / Papadimitriou, Serafim / Lazzara, Richard J. / Kalyvas, Demos
Purpose: To examine the effect of controlled progressive orthodontic loading on bone around implants subjected to overloading forces.
Materials and Methods: Bilateral edentulous alveolar ridges were created in the posterior maxilla of five beagle dogs and left to heal for an 8-week period, after which 40 implants were placed. In the overloading group (OL), 16 implants were inserted and left to osseointegrate for 16 weeks; impressions were made, and metal crowns were mounted on with supraocclusal contacts with the antagonist teeth. Implants were exposed to dynamic overloading for 16 weeks. In the progressive loading + overloading group (PL+OL), 16 implants were left to osseointegrate for 8 weeks, and custom abutment cores were fabricated and coupled by pairs with Ni-Ti orthodontic springs. Ascending static forces of 100g, 200g, and 300g were each applied for a 3-week period, for a total 9-week progressive loading period. Thereafter, metal crowns with supraocclusal contacts were adapted, and a 16-week overloading protocol for implants was followed as for the overloading group. In the unloaded control group (UL), eight implants were inserted and left uncovered and unloaded for 32 weeks, that is, until the end of the experimental period, at which point all 40 implants were removed with the surrounding bone. Histologic, histomorphometric, and statistical analysis followed.
Results: Higher bone-to-implant contact percentage was reported for the OL group (P = .006) and PL+OL group (P < .001) compared with the UL group. Between the OL and PL+OL groups, the addition of progressive loading did not increase the bone-to-implant contact percentage (P = .225). Bone density 1 mm and 2 mm distant to the threads did not differ significantly between the three groups. Significantly lower crestal bone resorption was detected around OL group implants (P = .006) and PL+OL group implants (P = .004) compared with the UL group implants. The implant success rate was 87.5% for the UL group, 67.5% for the OL group, and 87.5% for the PL+OL group.
Conclusion: The application of controlled progressive orthodontic loading on osseointegrated implants preceding overloading forces did not increase bone-to-implant contact. When applied, overloading significantly increased bone-to-implant contact compared with the unloaded implants. A significantly higher implant success rate was reported in the PL+OL group compared with the OL group.
Keywords: bone remodeling, crestal bone resorption, occlusal load, overload, progressive load, static load