Dental Implants and Osseous Healing in the Oral Cavity

Mizutani, Takashi; Yamashita, Junro

doi:10.1002/9781119266594.ch123

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We showed that antibiotic prophylaxis reduced the bone–implant interface, which was associated with reduced osteoclasts and osteoblasts at day‐16 post‐surgery. Appreciating that both osteoclasts and osteoblasts contribute to dental implant placement osseous wound healing (Matsuura & Yamashita, 2018), these data suggest that prophylactic antibiotics suppress bone cell wound healing actions at the bone–implant interface. Future studies are needed, evaluating earlier/later post‐surgical time points, to better understand how alterations in osteoclasts and osteoblasts contribute to antibiotic prophylaxis‐induced detrimental effects on peri‐implant alveolar bone wound healing.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Antibiotic prophylaxis dysregulates dental implant placement surgery‐induced osteoimmune wound healing and attenuates the alveolar bone–implant interface in mice

Ahmad,

Pishevar,

Cochrane

et al. 2023

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimAntimicrobial‐induced shifts in commensal oral microbiota can dysregulate helper T‐cell oral immunity to affect osteoclast–osteoblast actions in alveolar bone. Antibiotic prophylaxis is commonly performed with dental implant placement surgery to prevent post‐surgical complications. However, antibiotic prophylaxis effects on osteoimmune processes supporting dental implant osseointegration are unknown. The aim of the study was to discern the impact of antibiotic prophylaxis on dental implant placement surgery‐induced osteoimmune wound healing and osseointegration.Materials and MethodsWe performed SHAM or dental implant placement surgery in mice. Groups were administered prophylactic antibiotics (amoxicillin or clindamycin) or vehicle. Gingival bacteriome was assessed via 16S sequencing. Helper T‐cell oral immunity was evaluated by flow cytometry. Osteoclasts and osteoblasts were assessed via histomorphometry. Implant osseointegration was evaluated by micro‐computed tomography.ResultsDental implant placement surgery up‐regulated TH1, TH2 and TREG cells in cervical lymph nodes (CLNs), which infers helper T‐cell oral immunity contributes to dental implant placement osseous wound healing. Prophylactic antibiotics with dental implant placement surgery caused a bacterial dysbiosis, suppressed TH1, TH2 and TREG cells in CLNs, reduced osteoclasts and osteoblasts lining peri‐implant alveolar bone, and attenuated the alveolar bone–implant interface.ConclusionsAntibiotic prophylaxis dysregulates dental implant placement surgery‐induced osteoimmune wound healing and attenuates the alveolar bone–implant interface in mice.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Antibiotic prophylaxis dysregulates dental implant placement surgery‐induced osteoimmune wound healing and attenuates the alveolar bone–implant interface in mice

Ahmad,

Pishevar,

Cochrane

et al. 2023

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The mechanisms of wound healing around dental implants are characterized by several features. The cellular and molecular mechanisms of the osseointegration process have not yet been fully established and require further research in this direction ( Matsuura and Yamashita, 2018 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selected osteointegration markers in different timeframes after dental implantation: findings and prognostic value

Bayandurov,

Orjonikidze,

Kraveishvili

et al. 2024

Acta Biochim. Pol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study aimed to determine the osteointegration markers after dental implantation and evaluate their predictive value. The study was performed on 60 practically healthy persons who needed teeth rehabilitation using dental implants. The conical-shaped implants (CI) and hexagonal implants (HI) were used. The content of Osteopontin (OPN), Osteocalcin (OC), Alkaline Phosphatase (ALP), Osteoprotegerin (OPG), and nitric oxide (NO) was determined in patients’ gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) and peri-implant sulcular fluid (PISF), collected 1, 3, and 6 months after implantation. During the 3–6 months of observation level of OPN increased in patients with CIs (<50 years > 50 years) and HIs (<50 years) (CI: <50 years F = 36.457, p < 0.001; >50 years F = 30.104, p < 0.001; HI < 50 years F = 2.246, p < 0.001), ALP increased in patients with CIs (<50 years: F = 19.58, p < 0.001; >50 years: F = 12.01; p = 0.001) and HIs (<50 years) (F = 18.51, p < 0.001), OC increased in patients <50 years (CI: F = 33.72, p < 0.001; HI: F = 55.57, p < 0.001), but in patients >50 years - on the 3 days month (CI: F = 18.82, p < 0.001; HI: F = 26.26, p < 0.001), but sharply decreased at the end of sixth month. OPG increased during 1–3 months of the observation in patients <50 years (CI: F = 4.63, p = 0.037; HI: F = 2.8927, p = 0.046), but at the end of the sixth month returned to the initial level; NO content in PISF increased in patients with CI (>50 years) during 1–6 months of the observation (F = 27.657, p < 0.001). During the post-implantation period, age-related differences in osteointegration were observed. Patients <50 years old had relatively high levels of OPN, ALP, OC, and OPG in PISF, resulting in less alveolar bone destruction around dental implants and more intensive osteointegration. These indicators may be used as biological markers for monitoring implant healing. The process of osseointegration was more intense in CIs due to their comparatively high mechanical loading.

show abstract

“…ოსტეოინტეგრაციის პროცესის უჯრედული და მოლეკულური მექანიზმები ჯერ კიდევ ბოლომდე დადგენილი არ არის და საჭიროებს შემდგომ კვლევებს ამ მიმართულებით [4]. Целью исследования было изучение маркеров остеоинтеграции после дентальной имплантации.…”

unclassified

Alterations of the Osteointegration Markers After Dental Implantation

BAYANDUROV¹,

ORJONIKIDZE²,

GABUNIA³

et al. 2022

jecm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The stability of the implant depends significantly on the process of osseointegration between the bone and the implant. The cellular and molecular mechanisms of the osseointegration process have not yet been fully established and require further research in this direction.The aim of the study was to study the markers of the processes of osteointegration after dental implantation. The study was conducted on 31 patients who underwent implantation at the base of "Unident" and "A1" clinics.We collected gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) and peri-implant sulcus fluid (PISF) from patients before implantation and 1 month after implantation. In PISF and GCF fluids, bone markers (osteoprotegerin (OPG), osteocalcin (OC), osteopontin (OPN), bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (bALP)) were determined by the immunoenzymatic method.The PISF and GCF were collected using standardized paper strips (Periopaper, no.593525), which were placed at the entrance of the grooves of the implant and/or healthy teeth at a standardized depth of 1 mm for 30 seconds. The content of the OPG, OC and bALP in the PISF fluid 1 month after implantation does not change statistically significantly compared to the initial values in the GCF fluid (p=0.74; p=0.44; p=0.69). 1 month after the implantation, the content of OPN in PISF fluid increased by 133% compared to its content in GCF fluid before implantation (p<0.001).According to the study results, the OPN content in the PISF fluid increases sharply 1 month after the implantation. This parameter can be used as a marker of implant integration with living bone and bone wound healing.

show abstract

Dental Implants and Osseous Healing in the Oral Cavity

Cited by 3 publications

References 46 publications

Antibiotic prophylaxis dysregulates dental implant placement surgery‐induced osteoimmune wound healing and attenuates the alveolar bone–implant interface in mice

Antibiotic prophylaxis dysregulates dental implant placement surgery‐induced osteoimmune wound healing and attenuates the alveolar bone–implant interface in mice

Selected osteointegration markers in different timeframes after dental implantation: findings and prognostic value

Alterations of the Osteointegration Markers After Dental Implantation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About