Functional adaptation to full‐arch fixed prosthesis supported by osseointegrated implants in the edentulous mandible

Abstract

The objective of the present study was to assess possible adaptive functional changes in the masticatory system after insertion of fixed prostheses supported by osseointegrated implants in the edentulous mandible. Registrations of mandibular movement characteristics and maximal biteforce were performed at insertion and after 1 week, 3 months and 1 year after connection. The duration of the opening and closing phase decreased and maximal biteforce increased significantly (p < or = 0.05-0.001) from connection of the prostheses to the annual check-up. However, the process of functional adaptation implied 2 identified stages. An immediate phase that occurred within the 1st week, probably due to altered impact from mechano-sensitive receptors and a later more time-dependent phase, based on learning and new cortical engrams. Accordingly, the process of adaptation will continue over a long period of time.

Fixed Implant‐Supported Prostheses in Elderly Patients: A 5‐Year Retrospective Study of 133 Edentulous Patients Older than 79 Years

“…More speech problems, decubitus, and overall problems with adaptation were also noticed, and the general impression must be that elderly patients have more problems to adapt to and must learn new muscle patterns for chewing as well as for speaking and toothbrushing. This finding of delayed adaptation and muscular function in elderly patients coincides with findings in earlier reports 7,24,38 and may explain why elderly patients may prefer removable prostheses to fixed implant prostheses, claiming easier cleaning as the reason for their choice. 39 Accordingly the elderly patients reported problems that were related more to adaptation than were the problems reported by the younger patients.…”

“…29,36,37 Furthermore, in accordance with other reports, both groups in the present study had more implant failures in the maxilla. 29,38 Accordingly both the pattern and frequency of lost implants as well as the degree of bone loss were comparable for the two groups in both upper and lower jaws, indicating that implant treatment can be expected to function as well in older patients as it does in younger individuals. This ''cluster problem'' has been reported in other studies.…”

“…This ''cluster problem'' has been reported in other studies. 29,38 Accordingly both the pattern and frequency of lost implants as well as the degree of bone loss were comparable for the two groups in both upper and lower jaws, indicating that implant treatment can be expected to function as well in older patients as it does in younger individuals. The present findings thus strongly support the observation that age alone is not a contraindication for implant treatment.…”

“…38), n = 85 Loading to 5 yr 0.4 (0.44), n = 37 0.6 (0.57), n = 56 0.7 (0.45), n = 14 0.6 (0.50), n = Calculated from a reference point 0.8 mm below the implant/abutment junction and with the patient as the unit (n).y Values in parentheses represent standard deviations.…”

“All‐on‐Four” Immediate Function Concept and Clinical Report of Treatment of an Edentulous Mandible with a Fixed Complete Denture and Milled Titanium Framework

“…The development of new protocols for immediate loading of dental implants has switched from placing multiple implants and loading a few to placing only four implants as an optimal number to restore a completely edentulous mandible 5 . Rehabilitation of the posterior edentulous mandible can at times be hindered by bone atrophy distal to the mental foramen and bite forces that are more posterior in the dentition 6 . Traditionally, and according to the original concept of the Branemark system, implants are placed in a fairly upright position in the anterior edentulous mandible.…”