| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Albrektsson, Tomas, 1945, et al.
(författare)
-
An Imbalance of the Immune System Instead of a Disease Behind Marginal Bone Loss Around Oral Implants: Position Paper
- 2020
-
Ingår i: The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants. - : Quintessence Publishing. - 1942-4434 .- 0882-2786. ; 35:3, s. 495-502
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to present evidence that supports the notion that the primary reason behind marginal bone loss and implant failure is immune-based and that bacterial actions in the great majority of problematic cases are of a secondary nature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The paper is written as a narrative review. RESULTS: Evidence is presented that commercially pure titanium is not biologically inert, but instead activates the innate immune system of the body. For its function, the clinical implant is dependent on an immune/inflammatory defense against bacteria. Biologic models such as ligature studies have incorrectly assumed that the primary response causing marginal bone loss is due to bacterial action. In reality, bacterial actions are secondary to an imbalance of the innate immune system caused by the combination of titanium implants and ligatures, ie, nonself. This immunologic imbalance may lead to marginal bone resorption even in the absence of bacteria. CONCLUSION: Marginal bone loss and imminent oral implant failure cannot be properly analyzed without a clear understanding of immunologically caused tissue responses.
|
|
| 6. |
- Albrektsson, Tomas, et al.
(författare)
-
Foreign body reactions, marginal bone loss and allergies in relation to titanium implants
- 2018
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Oral Implantology. - : Quintessence. - 1756-2406 .- 1756-2414. ; 11, s. 37-46
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aim: To describe general observations of immunological reactions to foreign materials and to realize that CP titanium gives rise to a foreign body reaction with subsequent bone embedment when placed as oral implants. To analyse the possibility of titanium allergy. Materials and methods: The present paper is of a narrative review type. Hand and Medline searches were performed to evaluate marginal bone loss of oral implants and the potential of titanium allergy. Results: Immunological reactions to foreign substances include Type I hypersensitivity reactions such as allergy, Type II hypersensitivity reactions characterised by IgM or IgG antibodies that may react with blood group antigens at transfusion, and Type III hypersensitivity caused by antigen-antibody immune complexes exemplified by acute serum sickness. There is also Type IV hypersensitivity, or delayed hypersensitivity, which is typically found in drug and foreign body reactions. It proved very difficult to find a universally acceptable definition of reasons for marginal bone loss around oral implants, which lead to most varying figures of so-called peri-implantitis being 1% to 2% in some 10-year follow-up papers to between 28% and 56% of all placed implants in other papers. It was recognised that bone resorption to oral as well as orthopaedic implants may be due to immunological reactions. Today, osseointegration is seen as an immune-modulated inflammatory process where the immune system is locally either up- or downregulated. Titanium implant allergy is a rare condition, if it exists. The authors found only two papers presenting strong evidence of allergy to CP titanium, but with the lack of universally accepted and tested patch tests, the precise diagnosis is difficult. Conclusions: CP titanium acts as a foreign body when placed in live tissues. There may be immunological reasons behind marginal bone loss. Titanium allergy may exist in rare cases, but there is a lack of properly designed and analysed patch tests at present.
|
|
| 7. |
- Albrektsson, Tomas, 1945, et al.
(författare)
-
healing response
- 2008
-
Ingår i: osseointegration. - : Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc. - 9780867154795 ; , s. 47-50, s. 51-57
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 8. |
- Albrektsson, Tomas, et al.
(författare)
-
Is Marginal Bone Loss around Oral Implants the Result of a Provoked Foreign Body Reaction?
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 1523-0899 .- 1708-8208. ; 16:2, s. 155-165
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background When a foreign body is placed in bone or soft tissue, an inflammatory reaction inevitably develops. Hence, osseointegration is but a foreign body response to the implant, which according to classic pathology is a chronic inflammatory response and characterized by bone embedding/separation of the implant from the body. Purpose The aim of this paper is to suggest an alternative way of looking at the reason for marginal bone loss as a complication to treatment rather than a disease process. Materials and Methods The present paper is authored as a narrative review contribution. Results The implant-enveloping bone has sparse blood circulation and is lacking proper innervation in clear contrast to natural teeth that are anchored in bone by a periodontal ligament rich in blood vessels and nerves. Fortunately, a balanced, steady state situation of the inevitable foreign body response will be established for the great majority of implants, seen as maintained osseointegration with no or only very little marginal bone loss. Marginal bone resorption around the implant is the result of different tissue reactions coupled to the foreign body response and is not primarily related to biofilm-mediated infectious processes as in the pathogenesis of periodontitis around teeth. This means that initial marginal bone resorption around implants represents a reaction to treatment and is not at all a disease process. There is clear evidence that the initial foreign body response to the implant can be sustained and aggravated by various factors related to implant hardware, patient characteristics, surgical and/or prosthodontic mishaps, which may lead to significant marginal bone loss and possibly to implant failure. Admittedly, once severe marginal bone loss has developed, a secondary biofilm-mediated infection may follow as a complication to the already established bone loss. Conclusions The present authors regard researchers seeing marginal bone loss as a periodontitis-like disease to be on the wrong track; the onset of marginal bone loss around oral implants depends in reality on a dis-balanced foreign body response.
|
|
| 9. |
- Albrektsson, Tomas, 1945, et al.
(författare)
-
On inflammation-immunological balance theory—A critical apprehension of disease concepts around implants: Mucositis and marginal bone loss may represent normal conditions and not necessarily a state of disease
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research. - : Wiley. - 1523-0899 .- 1708-8208. ; 21:1, s. 183-189
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Oral implants have displayed clinical survival results at the 95%-99% level for over 10 years of follow up. Nevertheless, some clinical researchers see implant disease as a most common phenomenon. Oral implants are regarded to display disease in the form of mucositis or peri-implantitis. One purpose of the present article is to investigate whether a state of disease is necessarily occurring when implants display soft tissue inflammation or partially lose their bony attachment. Another purpose of this article is to analyze the mode of defense for implants that are placed in a bacteria rich environment and to analyze when an obtained steady state between tissue and the foreign materials is disturbed. Materials and Methods: The present article is authored as a narrative review contribution. Results: Evidence is presented that further documents the fact that implants are but foreign bodies that elicit a foreign body response when placed in bone tissue. The foreign body response is characterized by a bony demarcation of implants in combination with a chronic inflammation in soft tissues. Oral implants survive in the bacteria-rich environments where they are placed due to a dual defense system in form of chronic inflammation coupled to immunological cellular actions. Clear evidence is presented that questions the automatic diagnostics of an oral implant disease based on the finding of so called mucositis that in many instances represents but a normal tissue response to foreign body implants instead of disease. Furthermore, neither is marginal bone loss around implants necessarily indicative of a disease; the challenge to the implant represented by bone resorption may be successfully counteracted by local defense mechanisms and a new tissue-implant steady state may evolve. Similar reactions including chronic inflammation occur in the interface of orthopedic implants that display similarly good long-term results as do oral implants, if mainly evaluated based on revision surgery in orthopedic cases. The most common mode of failure of orthopedic implants is aseptic loosening which has been found coupled to a reactivation of the inflammatory- immune system. Conclusions: Implants survive in the body due to balanced defense reactions in form of chronic inflammation and activation of the innate immune system. Ten year results of oral and hip /knee implants are hence in the 90+ percentage region. Clinical problems may occur with bone resorption that in most cases is successfully counterbalanced by the defense/healing systems. However, in certain instances implant failure will ensue characterized by bacterial attacks and/or by reactivation of the immune system that now will act to remove the foreign bodies from the tissues.
|
|
| 10. |
- Albrektsson, Tomas, 1945, et al.
(författare)
-
On osseointegration in relation to implant surfaces
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research. - : Wiley. - 1523-0899 .- 1708-8208. ; 21, s. 4-7
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background The understanding of mechanisms of osseointegration as well as applied knowledge about oral implant surfaces are of paramount importance for successful clinical results. Purpose The aim of the present article is to present an overview of osseointegration mechanisms and an introduction to surface innovations with relevance for osseointegration that will be published in the same supplement of Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research. Materials and Methods The present article is a narrative review of some osseointegration and implant surface-related details. Results and Conclusions Osseointegration has a changed definition since it is realized today that oral implants are but foreign bodies and that this fact explains osseointegration as a protection mechanism of the tissues. Given adequate stability, bone tissue is formed around titanium implants to shield them from the tissues. Oral implant surfaces may be characterized by microroughness and nanoroughness, by surface chemical composition and by physical and mechanical parameters. An isotropic, moderately rough implant surface such as seen on the TiUnite device has displayed improved clinical results compared to previously used minimally rough or rough surfaces. However, there is a lack of clinical evidence supporting any particular type of nanoroughness pattern that, at best, is documented with results from animal studies. It is possible, but as yet unproven, that clinical results may be supported by a certain chemical composition of the implant surface. The same can be said with respect to hydrophilicity of implant surfaces; positive animal data may suggest some promise, but there is a lack of clinical evidence that hydrophilic implants result in improved clinical outcome of more hydrophobic surfaces. With respect to mechanical properties, it seems obvious that those must be encompassing the loading of oral implants, but we need more research on the mechanically ideal implant surface from a clinical aspect.
|
|
