|
|
This months Rewind is a very interesting and one of the most revered areas of dentistry today. Dr. Ajit Shetty takes you down memory lane exploring the past and the today of the science of Implantology. HISTORY OF IMPLANTSEven
early man knew the importance of having a good dentition.
Teeth have been used as a weapon for offence and defence.
The loss of teeth and the debilitating effects on the
general health and power was understood even then. Teeth
have been shaped, sawed, veneered to enhance beauty, show
wealth and power.
The
last two decades of the century saw the use of all kinds
of materials such as porcelain, gutta percha and
platinum. In the 1940s Formiggini developed a screw
type of implant. Chercheve introduced in 1962 another
screw type of implant made of chrome cobalt which became
very popular. A serious draw back with this implant was
that it was unable to withstand any lateral forces. It
was in 1967 that Hodosh used acrylic resin in the form of
a tooth and tested these implants on monkeys. Since
acrylic was easy to shape and was resistant to corrosion
unlike most metals, it was, therefore the material of
choice. These implants were made with a porous root type
structure which was said to allow ingrowth of bone, but
unfortunately this was not to be. Linkow in 1966
developed the blade type of implant and used to fabricate
them from chromium nickel and vanadium. These were single
step procedures, where implants were introduced through
the mucosa into the bone. Subsequently a lot of workers
tried to develop blades of various designs and of
different materials all of which resulted in varied
success rates. Currently these blades are being made from
titanium, ceramic (monocrystalline forms ) and memory
alloys, all being very bio compatible materials. The
concept of fibro osseous integration was given a
tremendous boost by Dr.Charles Weiss, who developed a
blade implant system, where he used single stage blades,
inserted these into the jaws, sutured the flap and
immediately fabricated a temporary prosthesis. This was
cemented on the implant essentially within 24 hours and
the patient was asked to chew on that. This resulted in
that there was a fibrous interface between the bone and
the blade and this was claimed to be functioning like the
periodontal ligament. Microscopic studies revealed that
the fibrous capsule that did form was not directional in
its attachment to either surface and unlike the
periodontal ligament would not assist in handling the
forces rendered on the implant. One
other major difference was the method of preparation of
the osteotomy for the insertion of the implant. Unlike
all other modern implant systems that have stressed on
the need of gradual precise congruent enlargement of the
implant osteotomy site, he advocated the use of an air
rotor handpeice and free handed the slot preparation. The
last two to three decades saw further improvement in
blade design, whereby stress distribution to the implant
bone interface has been well balanced and the use of bio
compatible material such as titanium. Further the
development of two stage blades with more precise
instrumentation developed by Hans Graffelman have
increased the success rates to almost a 96 % value. In
1975, Hodosh et al developed implants made of a bio
compatible material--vitreous carbon. These implants had
a fibrous band which was claimed to be well organized and
which could compare favorably to natural periodontal
ligaments, with added advantage of bone ingrowth since
the material was bio compatible. These implants were used
as a single tooth replacement inserting them into bone
sockets. They were made from 99.99 % pure carbon and this
had a stainless steel sleeve for strength . Though there
was a claim of 70 % success in experiments on baboons the
results in clinical trials were not as successful. One
other material -- ceramic which was used way back in
1880, a bio compatible inert material reemerged in
1960s in newer forms. The brittle nature of this
material caused it to fail and to overcome these problems
the monocrystalline forms were developed which were much
stronger. These were basically developed in Japan and
good results were claimed in the mandible. The implant
soft tissue interface was similar to the that between
natural tooth and the gingiva. Like all great discoveries
of this world that of titanium as ann accident Dr
Branemark an orthopaedic surgeon inserted a titanium
chamber into the tibia of a rabbit to study
microcirculation in box repair mechanisms. After the
completion of the study when he tried too remove the
chamber he realised that it was fixed good and proper and
realized that there was a strong bony anchorage. From
this resulted the development of the dental implant.
Titanium implants were placed into jaw bones of dogs and
fixed prothesis were fixed onto these annd the results
were evaluated at different time intervals. On the basis
of these results a foundation for osseo integration and
the Branemark implant system was established in 1952.
Basic research was carried out and the clinical use began
in May 1965. Controlled clinical trials and careful
documentations that followed over the folllowing 15 to 20
years period resulted in a wealth of information which
resulted in the world sitting up and taking notice of
this predictable modality of tooth replacement and this
is how it came to stay. Subsequently other workers have modified the design of the implant fixtures, abutments, surgical drills etc each with a view of overcoming certain shortcomings or lending certain extra benefits. |
|
|