Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Advances in Dental Research
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Stanford, C. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Stanford, C. M.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?
Adv Dent Res 13:88-92, June, 1999
© 1999 SAGE Publications

Biomechanical and Functional Behavior of Implants

Clark M. Stanford

Dows Institute for Dental Research College of Dentistry University of Iowa Iowa City, Iowa 52242, USA

The ability to achieve a long-term stable implant interface is not a significant clinical issue when sufficient uni- or bi-cortical stabilization is available. Clinical outcomes studies suggest that the higher-risk implants are those placed in compromised cortical bone (thin, porous, etc.) in anatomic sites with minimal existing trabecular bone (characterized as type IV bone). In establishing and maintaining an implant interface in such an environment, one needs to consider the impact of masticatory forces. These forces, in turn, have the potential to create localized changes in interfacial stiffness through the viscoelastic properties of bone. Changes in these properties will alter the communication between osteocytes and osteoblasts, leading to an increase in new bone growth, a maintenance of established bone, or a loss (potentially catastrophic) of either cortical or trabecular bone. Therefore, a key to understanding the biomechanical and functional behavior at an implant interface is to control the extent of anticipated modeling and remodeling behavior through an optimal implant design combined with a thorough understanding of how tissues respond to the mechanically active environment.

Key Words: Interface • mechanotransduction • surface topography • adaptive remodeling.

Advances in Dental Research, Vol. 13, No. 1, 88-92 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/08959374990130012101


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Journal of the American Dental AssociationHome page
C. M. STANFORD
Application of oral implants to the general dental practice
J Am Dent Assoc, August 1, 2005; 136(8): 1092 - 1100.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JDRHome page
H. Nakamura, L. Saruwatari, H. Aita, K. Takeuchi, and T. Ogawa
Molecular and Biomechanical Characterization of Mineralized Tissue by Dental Pulp Cells on Titanium
Journal of Dental Research, June 1, 2005; 84(6): 515 - 520.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]