Sensory Responses from Loading of Implants

A Pilot Study

Saul Weiner, David Sirois, David Ehrenberg, Neal Lehrmann, Barry Simon, Harry Zohn

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: Osseointegrated implants lack a periodontal ligament Nevertheless, masticatory function in subjects with implant-supported restorations appears similar to function in those with natural dentition. It is not clear how the neurophysiologic mechanisms that modulate jaw movement are associated with osseointegrated implants. This study examined the output from the inferior alveolar nerve during implant loading. Materials and Methods: In 3 dogs, 3 premolars were extracted in the mandible and 2 endosseous titanium implants were placed, allowed to osseointegrate for 3 months, and loaded with vibration force at the threshold response for tooth vibration, at 2x threshold, and at 3x threshold. Neurophysiologic recordings were made from the inferior alveolar nerve during loading of both implants and the adjacent molar and canine. The response magnitude in action potentials in the 50-ms poststimulus period and latency of inferior alveolar afferents in milliseconds were compared following implant loading. Results: Detectable inferior alveolar nerve responses were recorded following loading from both the implants and the teeth at 2x and 3X threshold. However, the response magnitude of teeth (canine, 2.38 ± 0.18 at 2x, 2.78 ± 0.2 at 3X; molar, 2.2 ± 0.16 at 2X, 2.5 ± 0.21 at 3x) was twice that of the implants (anterior, 1.3 ± 0.12 at 2X, 1.68 ± 0.13 at 3X; posterior, 0.8 ± 0.1 at 2x, 1.53 ± 0.15 at 3x). The differences in response magnitude between the teeth and implants were significant (P < .05). The latency of response was similar. Discussion: Management of the occlusion for implant-supported restorations has been empirically developed. An underlying assumption has been that implant-guided jaw function lacks significant proprioception to modulate mastication and related jaw movements. This animal study provides preliminary evidence that force application to implants does elicit a proprioceptive response. Conclusion: Loading of implants does elicit a sensory response that can be observed in the inferior alveolar nerve. The implications are that during occlusal function, information from regions associated with the implant can provide knowledge that could potentially modulate jaw activity in a manner similar to natural teeth.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)44-51
Number of pages8
JournalThe International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants
Volume19
Issue number1
StatePublished - Jan 2004

Fingerprint

Mandibular Nerve
Jaw
Tooth
Vibration
Cuspid
Proprioception
Periodontal Ligament
Dentition
Mastication
Bicuspid
Titanium
Mandible
Action Potentials
Reaction Time
Canidae
Dogs

Keywords

  • Dental implants
  • Inferior alveolar nerve
  • Proprioception

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Weiner, S., Sirois, D., Ehrenberg, D., Lehrmann, N., Simon, B., & Zohn, H. (2004). Sensory Responses from Loading of Implants: A Pilot Study. The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants, 19(1), 44-51.

Sensory Responses from Loading of Implants : A Pilot Study. / Weiner, Saul; Sirois, David; Ehrenberg, David; Lehrmann, Neal; Simon, Barry; Zohn, Harry.

In: The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants, Vol. 19, No. 1, 01.2004, p. 44-51.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Weiner, S, Sirois, D, Ehrenberg, D, Lehrmann, N, Simon, B & Zohn, H 2004, 'Sensory Responses from Loading of Implants: A Pilot Study', The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 44-51.
Weiner, Saul ; Sirois, David ; Ehrenberg, David ; Lehrmann, Neal ; Simon, Barry ; Zohn, Harry. / Sensory Responses from Loading of Implants : A Pilot Study. In: The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants. 2004 ; Vol. 19, No. 1. pp. 44-51.
@article{e7cb96ffeef44449affe90fd362ea61f,
title = "Sensory Responses from Loading of Implants: A Pilot Study",
abstract = "Purpose: Osseointegrated implants lack a periodontal ligament Nevertheless, masticatory function in subjects with implant-supported restorations appears similar to function in those with natural dentition. It is not clear how the neurophysiologic mechanisms that modulate jaw movement are associated with osseointegrated implants. This study examined the output from the inferior alveolar nerve during implant loading. Materials and Methods: In 3 dogs, 3 premolars were extracted in the mandible and 2 endosseous titanium implants were placed, allowed to osseointegrate for 3 months, and loaded with vibration force at the threshold response for tooth vibration, at 2x threshold, and at 3x threshold. Neurophysiologic recordings were made from the inferior alveolar nerve during loading of both implants and the adjacent molar and canine. The response magnitude in action potentials in the 50-ms poststimulus period and latency of inferior alveolar afferents in milliseconds were compared following implant loading. Results: Detectable inferior alveolar nerve responses were recorded following loading from both the implants and the teeth at 2x and 3X threshold. However, the response magnitude of teeth (canine, 2.38 ± 0.18 at 2x, 2.78 ± 0.2 at 3X; molar, 2.2 ± 0.16 at 2X, 2.5 ± 0.21 at 3x) was twice that of the implants (anterior, 1.3 ± 0.12 at 2X, 1.68 ± 0.13 at 3X; posterior, 0.8 ± 0.1 at 2x, 1.53 ± 0.15 at 3x). The differences in response magnitude between the teeth and implants were significant (P < .05). The latency of response was similar. Discussion: Management of the occlusion for implant-supported restorations has been empirically developed. An underlying assumption has been that implant-guided jaw function lacks significant proprioception to modulate mastication and related jaw movements. This animal study provides preliminary evidence that force application to implants does elicit a proprioceptive response. Conclusion: Loading of implants does elicit a sensory response that can be observed in the inferior alveolar nerve. The implications are that during occlusal function, information from regions associated with the implant can provide knowledge that could potentially modulate jaw activity in a manner similar to natural teeth.",
keywords = "Dental implants, Inferior alveolar nerve, Proprioception",
author = "Saul Weiner and David Sirois and David Ehrenberg and Neal Lehrmann and Barry Simon and Harry Zohn",
year = "2004",
month = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "19",
pages = "44--51",
journal = "International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants",
issn = "0882-2786",
publisher = "Quintessence Publishing Company",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Sensory Responses from Loading of Implants

T2 - A Pilot Study

AU - Weiner, Saul

AU - Sirois, David

AU - Ehrenberg, David

AU - Lehrmann, Neal

AU - Simon, Barry

AU - Zohn, Harry

PY - 2004/1

Y1 - 2004/1

N2 - Purpose: Osseointegrated implants lack a periodontal ligament Nevertheless, masticatory function in subjects with implant-supported restorations appears similar to function in those with natural dentition. It is not clear how the neurophysiologic mechanisms that modulate jaw movement are associated with osseointegrated implants. This study examined the output from the inferior alveolar nerve during implant loading. Materials and Methods: In 3 dogs, 3 premolars were extracted in the mandible and 2 endosseous titanium implants were placed, allowed to osseointegrate for 3 months, and loaded with vibration force at the threshold response for tooth vibration, at 2x threshold, and at 3x threshold. Neurophysiologic recordings were made from the inferior alveolar nerve during loading of both implants and the adjacent molar and canine. The response magnitude in action potentials in the 50-ms poststimulus period and latency of inferior alveolar afferents in milliseconds were compared following implant loading. Results: Detectable inferior alveolar nerve responses were recorded following loading from both the implants and the teeth at 2x and 3X threshold. However, the response magnitude of teeth (canine, 2.38 ± 0.18 at 2x, 2.78 ± 0.2 at 3X; molar, 2.2 ± 0.16 at 2X, 2.5 ± 0.21 at 3x) was twice that of the implants (anterior, 1.3 ± 0.12 at 2X, 1.68 ± 0.13 at 3X; posterior, 0.8 ± 0.1 at 2x, 1.53 ± 0.15 at 3x). The differences in response magnitude between the teeth and implants were significant (P < .05). The latency of response was similar. Discussion: Management of the occlusion for implant-supported restorations has been empirically developed. An underlying assumption has been that implant-guided jaw function lacks significant proprioception to modulate mastication and related jaw movements. This animal study provides preliminary evidence that force application to implants does elicit a proprioceptive response. Conclusion: Loading of implants does elicit a sensory response that can be observed in the inferior alveolar nerve. The implications are that during occlusal function, information from regions associated with the implant can provide knowledge that could potentially modulate jaw activity in a manner similar to natural teeth.

AB - Purpose: Osseointegrated implants lack a periodontal ligament Nevertheless, masticatory function in subjects with implant-supported restorations appears similar to function in those with natural dentition. It is not clear how the neurophysiologic mechanisms that modulate jaw movement are associated with osseointegrated implants. This study examined the output from the inferior alveolar nerve during implant loading. Materials and Methods: In 3 dogs, 3 premolars were extracted in the mandible and 2 endosseous titanium implants were placed, allowed to osseointegrate for 3 months, and loaded with vibration force at the threshold response for tooth vibration, at 2x threshold, and at 3x threshold. Neurophysiologic recordings were made from the inferior alveolar nerve during loading of both implants and the adjacent molar and canine. The response magnitude in action potentials in the 50-ms poststimulus period and latency of inferior alveolar afferents in milliseconds were compared following implant loading. Results: Detectable inferior alveolar nerve responses were recorded following loading from both the implants and the teeth at 2x and 3X threshold. However, the response magnitude of teeth (canine, 2.38 ± 0.18 at 2x, 2.78 ± 0.2 at 3X; molar, 2.2 ± 0.16 at 2X, 2.5 ± 0.21 at 3x) was twice that of the implants (anterior, 1.3 ± 0.12 at 2X, 1.68 ± 0.13 at 3X; posterior, 0.8 ± 0.1 at 2x, 1.53 ± 0.15 at 3x). The differences in response magnitude between the teeth and implants were significant (P < .05). The latency of response was similar. Discussion: Management of the occlusion for implant-supported restorations has been empirically developed. An underlying assumption has been that implant-guided jaw function lacks significant proprioception to modulate mastication and related jaw movements. This animal study provides preliminary evidence that force application to implants does elicit a proprioceptive response. Conclusion: Loading of implants does elicit a sensory response that can be observed in the inferior alveolar nerve. The implications are that during occlusal function, information from regions associated with the implant can provide knowledge that could potentially modulate jaw activity in a manner similar to natural teeth.

KW - Dental implants

KW - Inferior alveolar nerve

KW - Proprioception

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=1342322630&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=1342322630&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 19

SP - 44

EP - 51

JO - International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants

JF - International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants

SN - 0882-2786

IS - 1

ER -