Successful osseointegration of implant has become the optimal objective of partially and full-arch implant-retained prosthesis. An appropriate occlusal approach is a critical requirement for both long-term survival implants and prosthesis. The effects of mechanical loading on bone-implant contacts (BIC) must be noted (Marcián et al. 2014). The excessive load of occlusion might affect the BIC and contribute to the peri-implantitis, bone loss, and even implant failure. Therefore, analyzing the implant occlusion and risk factors is important. To understand deeply occlusal overload, it is critical to differentiate early loading and occlusal overloading. Early loading is explained as implant/or prosthetics on implant bear occlusal force from 48 hours to 3 months after implant placement. This kind of force from early loading may affect osseointegration process. While occlusal overloading is the force transmission onto the BIC. To restore the full arch implant-retained bridge in maxilla jaw, the need to analyze implant occlusion, examine the risk factors of occlusal overloading, and finally suggest the appropriate occlusal management scheme and prosthesis design.
There are numerous differences between natural teeth and dental implants, which are summarized in table 1 (Kim et al. 2005). In terms of connection, natural teeth are supported by periodontal ligaments (PDL) while implants are suspended by osseointegration or by function ankylosis. PDL helps to adjust the occlusal stress toward the axis of the tooth and periodontal tissue. Overloading can cause injury with widening and destruction of the PDL, or even increasing mobility of the tooth and having periodontal disease. This is the normal action of a natural tooth which is a reversible process. Therefore, PDL of the natural teeth can make differences in loading and adaptation of force compared with the dental implants. The axial mobility of natural teeth in the socket is 25-100 µm, while implant mobility is 3-5µm. However, the fibers around implants which run parallel to the axis and do not attach to the surface. Therefore, this is a poor connection compared with the natural teeth.
In the study, Kim et al (2005) studied numerous academic articles and summarized that lateral and fulcrum force would focus on the apical third of root in natural dentition, compared with the focus on crestal bone in dental implants. So the stress on implant would be concentrated on the cervical bone around the implant. Due to excessive force loading, cervical bone loss occurs. Therefore, the implant must be protected by their placing in proper position and direction. In the natural teeth, malocclusion may occur, but it may be uneventful over the years. However, malocclusion on implants can cause a traumatic response and impact the crest of bone around implants. The signs of overloading can be seen as loosening of the screw, fracture, prosthesis fracture, abutment disconnected, and eventually in implant failure. According to the result of this study above, it can be conducted that the osseointegration of implants would be affected easily by overloading. As limited apical and lateral movement, adaptation to force, and low osseoperception, dental implants would be more susceptible to overloading factors.
Parafunctional habits such as bruxism, clenching, and heavy occlusion may cause excess forces and overloading. It is possible to generate fracture of both teeth and prosthesis, dislodge the screws, porcelain fracture, bone loss and implant failure. Bruxism is also parafunction which is considered a masticatory system’s disorders. This is one of the complex destructive Temporo-mandibular joint disorders. It has also been suggested to have an overload of implants and prosthesis. However, some studies have shown that there is no significant impact on the implant's bone loss. Bruxism seems not to be a risk factor for bone loss. Another study has shown that bone loss around implant and bruxism does not relate significantly (Johansson et al. 2008; Manfredini et al. 2010). In contrast, Rangert et al (1995) examined 90% of fracture implant cases had involved in the posterior region while 30% of cases were fixed bridge retained supported by 1 or 2 implants. In this study, the fracture of implant prosthesis associated with overloading such as bruxism (Rangert et al. 1995). Komiyama et al. (2012) conducted in the study that clinical management of bruxism for implant prosthesis will be a crucial factor in immediate or early loading. A night guard, psychological behaviour counselling along with pharmacological approach were recommended to protect implant prosthesis form bruxism. However, recommendations and treatment planning for bruxism were preferred by clinical based rather than literature-based.
Implant designs and characteristics also are critical factors of implant occlusion. Manufactures of implant branches have to decrease the height of threads and increase the width of implant threads to attain more bone-implant contact. These changes can help to maximize osseointegration and minimize bone loss. The micro and macro designs of implants can effect force distribution. V-shaped design threads, spiral, and square also increase the transition of force and are more efficient in osseointegration. Besides, the micro-surface features, tapered implants, implant dimensions, and position also lead to more bone contact and less stress. However, the design of the implant platform also plays an important role in force distribution. In the clinical study done by Shin et al (2006), implant with a smooth platform had significantly more marginal bone loss compared to the rough platform. Furthermore, the increase of number threads may help to gain more bone-implant contact. Besides, Schwarz (2000) conducted that a 45-degree bevel of the implant platform helps to minimize screw loosening in the implant screw-retained prosthesis.
Prosthetic design for implant has a significant impact on the long-term success of both prosthesis and implants. In terms of prosthesis design, cantilevers, premature contacts, cusp inclination, occlusal table, available occlusal space and improper torque could be considered risk factors of overloading.
In fixed dental bridge retainer prosthesis, cantilevers can contribute to overloading and possibly can cause stress to the bone interface of the implant. In terms of cantilever's length, in some studies shown that the length of the cantilever should be below 15mm. The larger cantilever can create overloading while the shorter cantilevers will minimize torque to abutment of the implant (Laurell and Lundgren, 1987). Duyck et al (2001) shown that compared to prosthesis with 5 or 6 implants, prosthesis supported by only 3 implants can have the highest forces and bending on the distal implants. The shorter length of cantilever must be a suitable choice for implant prosthesis. In the contact position or parafunction, the distribution of occlusal force could change and cause the greater force on cantilevers. The angled buccal cusp, or ridge contact from cantilever may be damaged during a time. Therefore, the evaluation of occlusion should be managed and eliminated the overloading forces.
Premature contacts are identified as occlusal contacts between prosthesis and dentition through movement. Premature contacts can occur from a normal movement of closure, or mandibular movement. The height of premature contacts is critical for marginal bone loss, or even peri-implantitis. As there is increasing in the height of the crown, or occurring premature contact on cantilevers, the forces which are from lateral premature contacts load to cervical bone. Therefore, excessive lateral forces may be a risk factor of marginal bone and implant loss. Lateral premature occlusal loads to the implant crestal region are further magnified when the crown height is increased or when present on the cantilevered portion of the prosthesis.
In terms of site-related factors, the quality of bone and ridge deficiency were the risk factors of implant complications. Some studies stated that poor quality of bone can be a crucial factor in implant failure. Engquist et al. (1988) conducted that there were higher implants failure rates in poor quality of bone. Jaffin and Berman (1991) examined 35% of 1054 implants in type IV bone were failed while 3% of implants in other types of bone were failed. They stated that the soft and type IV bone were the major factor of implant failure.
To maximized bone contact of implant and reduced magnificent force of occlusion. It is important to place an implant in the proper position. Non-axial occlusal force can increase the risk factors of overloading.
Occlusal complications of implant prosthesis are identified in some studies (Kim et al. 2004; Chen et al. 2008; Schwarz, 2000). There are loosen screw, screw fractures, porcelain fractures, bone loss, implant fractures, and implant loss. These complications resulted from excessive distribution force, or even overloading and lead to damage osseointegration, peri-implant tissue, and even implant and prosthesis on implant. The impact of occlusal overloading has been contributed to cervical bone loss. Clinician conducted in the literature report that there is the effect of occlusal load on osseointegration without the sign of inflammation. In healthy tissue condition, there was irreversible cervical bone loss around the implant in the excessive overloading. In a literature review of publications for the past 10 years, it is poor little evidence to cause and effect relationship between traumatic bone loss and overloading force. However, excessive overload seems to trigger marginal bone loss and there is a sign of inflammation (Bertolini et al. 2019). However, in the literature review done by Fu et al (2012), peri-implant bone loss was associated with occlusal overloading. The mechanism of fixture bone loss can be identified in the distribution of occlusal force and cause stress under overloading conditions. Stress was concentrated on marginal bone, lead to bone resorption significantly and then loss of osseointegration.
Besides, popular implant complications such as screw loosen or fractures, porcelain fractures can be repaired. In the literature study, porcelain fracture was the popular technical failure, more than 30% incidence were loosening retentive of overdenture, and 22% of resin veneer fractures (Goodacre et al. 2003).
As the specific condition of the implant, occlusion on implant should be minimized, less stress on both implant and prosthesis. Higher occlusion on cantilevers or other segments of fixed prosthesis on implants could be eliminated and equalized. The occlusal goals for implant prosthesis were bilateral continuous contact, no contact on retruded contact position (RCP), anterior guidance as possible, equal distribution of force, and non-working interferences (Chapman, 1989). There are modified basic principles of implant prosthesis including balance stability in centric occlusion, anterior guidance, no interference from centric and retruded position, evenly distributed occlusal contacts, the stability of bilateral occlusal, and proper force distribution (Beyron, 1969).
According to those risk factors of implant occlusion mentioned above, there are numerous considerations for implant occlusion including three major factors. To protect occlusion in implant prosthesis, the increasing bone quality of implant is needed including extend healing time and loading, other factors of implant size, length, and surfaces to achieve osseointegration. Another goal of implant occlusion are to improve force direction, occlusal force should be along the implant axis and focus on center contacts. In term of occlusal morphology, there are necessary of flatting central fossa, decreasing cusp inclination, and occlusal table. Also, to reduce magnificent force, distribution and proper position of occlusal contacts should be eliminated.
Kim et al. (2005) summarized the occlusal guidelines for numerous clinical applications. There is a full-arch fixed prosthesis, overdenture, posterior implant-supported fixed prosthesis, single implant prosthesis, and prosthesis on poor quality and grafted bone as the table 2 below.
Decision making of fully edentulous planning must be based on economic, psychosocial, and physical factors of the patients. There are numerous considerations of fully arch fixed implant-supported prosthesis including the relation of the maxilla and mandibular jaws, the quality and residual ridges, vertical and horizontal dimensions of bone, supporting anatomy, aesthetic concerns, lip support and so on. These are significant factors to determine for the position of implant and prosthesis outcome and occlusal scheme design and also called individual clinical determinants (IDCs). Kim et al. (2005) recommended that bilateral balanced occlusal contacts with opposite full denture. In case the opposite partial denture, it is recommended to have a group function occlusion. There is no working and balancing contact on the cantilever of the prosthesis. Clinical guidelines of full-arch fixed implant-supported prosthesis need to follow as shown in figure 3 below (Gross 2008).
These guidelines focused on implant-related and prosthesis factors that the clinicians should consider and manage. The number of implants in full-arch fixed implant-supported prosthesis is controversial. There are 6-8 implants in maxilla jaw and 5-8 implants in mandibular which are acceptable by clinicians. However, the angulation of the implant should be the right angle to the plane of occlusion. Following the prosthesis-related factors, distal cantilevers of the fixed bridge should be one premolar unit and do not contact in loading. It is necessary to reduce cantilever length and forces on the prosthesis. The ratio of crown and implant should be 1:1, if the ratio over 1:1, it will increase biomechanical risk. As the design of prosthetic, guiding cusp inclination should be flat as possible and minimize vertical overlap. Depend on the specific application of the individual clinical determinants (ICDs), implant occlusal scheme should be modified.
Protrusive guidance should be flat to prevent damaging and uneven contact in the posterior region. These will depend on the ICDs of the patients. Group function guidance should be achieved in lateral excursion to optimal force distribution. In the case of opposing natural dentition, anterior guidance in lateral excursion should have to reduce the unexpected lateral force. In this excursion, it is necessary to avoid the non-working and working interferences in posterior regions (Lundgren & Laurell 1994). Kim et al. (2005) summarized from several literature articles and stated that the need for mutually protected occlusion in which molar protects the anterior teeth in maximum intercuspation (MI) and anterior teeth also protect the back teeth in other excursions. On the occlusion adjustment of the full arch bridge, there are no balance and working contact on these cantilevers. Infraocclusion on a cantilever unit should be around 100 µm to decrease overload and fracture for the prosthesis. Besides, the length of cantilever should be kept under 15mm to minimize the torque to posterior abutment. The freedom in the centric should be from 1 to 1.5 mm (Chapman 1989).
The digital planning approach and surgical guide should be recommended for implant placement to achieve the right position of the implant and eliminate shear forces. The article showed that the size of occlusal table, the inclination of the cusp, and the number of contact with the opposite teeth or prosthesis were risk factors for overloading. Therefore, it was recommended to have a narrow and steady cusp inclination and occlusal table to reduce the magnitude of forces (Sheridan et al. 2016).
Occlusal force may be a critical selection and planning tool for both implant placement and implant prosthesis. In an excessive occlusal load situation, the need for appropriate implant size, the number of implant, occlusal, and prosthesis design schemes to prevent overloading (Flanagan 2017). In the report, although Flanagan et al stated that it is a high risk for late fracture of implant prosthesis with a high occlusal force and low occlusal force may have a successful result even if with poor bone quality. But there is no correlation of any overload would be indicated by any kind of occlusal force.
In fully edentulous implant support prosthesis, managing the consequences of bruxism is challenging for clinicians. Bruxism is clenching and grinding the teeth lead to traumatic natural dentition as well as prosthesis. In the article published by Galindo (2016), the first step of treatment planning is to identify parafunctional activity. There are several degrees of this activity. It is difficult to identify the early stage of bruxism due to the unawareness of the patients. However, clinicians could found significant wear surfaces, fractures of dentition structures and prosthesis, diminishing vertical dimension of occlusion.
BruxZir® Implant prosthesis is the durable alternative solution for screw-retained fully arch bridge, and hybrid dentures (Kosinski and Schaefer 2015). As construction by 100% of monolithic zirconia and more than 1,100 MPa of flexural strength, BruxZir® Implant prosthetic can minimum chips, stains, and porcelain fractures. Besides, it has a hypoallergenic feature, this kind of prosthetic wear compatible with natural dentition. It is recommended to restore the full-arch implant-supported prosthesis, and the ideal solution for bruxers who have a strong bite, clenching and grinding (Galindo 2016).
Moreover, pharmacological approach and night guard are also recommended for bruxism treatment. The hard splint should be worn nightly to help optimized distribution forces from clenching and grinding teeth. Another kind of splint, for example, soft splint could be utilized to ease the stress and force from the prosthesis.
Besides, a pharmacological treatment was proposed for bruxers with prosthetic on the implant, in severe situations, a low dose of the dopamine or botox treatment could be utilized to control bruxism in under future study ( Komiyama et al. 2012).
As the success of implant and prosthetic on implant depends on the osseointegration which is ankylosed to the bone. The overloading for occlusion is considered as a critical factor of prosthetic/ implant loss and failure. There are numerous implant and prosthesis complications, for instance, screw break, porcelain chips and fractures, peri-implantitis, bone loss, implant failure. The complication could be predictable and prevent proper treatment plans and occlusion management. The objectives of occlusal management, especially in fully arch fixed implant-supported prosthesis, are to minimize overloading on both implants and prosthetics, to achieve the long term stability and longevity of implant and prosthesis. According to four main risk factors of occlusion mentioned above, there are limiting patient-related factors such as parafunctional habits, improving the site-related factors including bone quality, and ridge deficiency, managing the occlusion force and distribution through implant and prosthesis related factors to protect prosthesis from overloading. In the fully arch implant-retained bridge, the need for occlusal splint should be fabricated after loading to protect occlusion and prevent bruxism. The management of occlusion are including of the implant or prosthesis components such as replacing with new devices, retightening the screw after occlusal equilibration as well as managing the marginal bone loss. For instance, mechanical debridement and antimicrobial approach should be considered to maintain a healthy condition for implant and prosthesis to achieve long-term survival.
Bertolini, M. M., Del Bel Cury, A. A., Pizzoloto, L., Acapa, I. R. H., Shibli, J. A. and Bordin, D., 2019. Does traumatic occlusal forces lead to peri-implant bone loss? A systematic review. Brazilian oral research, 33.Beyron, H. L., 1969. Optimal occlusion. Dental Clinics of North America,vol. 37, no. 11, pp. 537-554.
Chapman, R. J., 1989. Principles of occlusion for implant prosthesis: Guidelines for position, timing, and force of occlusal contacts. Quintessence International, vol.20, no.7, pp. 473-480.
Yu-Ying , C., Kuan, C-L., Wang, Y. 2008. Implant occlusion: Biomechanical considerations for implant-supported prosthesis. Journal Dentistry Sciences, vol.3, no.2, pp. 65-74.
Duyck, J., Van Oosterwyck, H., Vander Sloten, J., De Cooman, M., Puers, R. and Naert, I., 2000. Magnitude and distribution of occlusal forces on oral implants supporting fixed prostheses: an in vivo study. Clinical oral implants research, vol.11, no.5, pp.465-475.
Engquist, B., Bergendal, T., Kallus, T., and Linden, U., 1988. A retrospective multicenter evaluation of osseointegrated implants supporting overdentures. International Journal Oral maxillifacial Implants, vol.3, pp. 129-134.
Flanagan, D., 2017. Bite force and dental implant treatment: A short review. Medical Devices: Evidence and Research, vol.10, pp. 141-148.
Fu Jai-Hui, Yung-Ting Hsu, and Home-Lay Wang, 2012. Identifying occlusal overload and how to deal with it to avoid marginal bone loss around implants. European Journal of Oral Implantology, vol.5, pp. S91-S103.
Galindo, D. F., 2016. Managing the Consequences of Bruxism for Fully Edentulous Implant Patients. [Online]
Available at: https://glidewelldental.com/education/inclusive-dental-implant-magazine/volume-7-issue-2/bruxism-edentulous-implant
Goodacre, C. J., Bernal, G., Rungcharassaeng, K., Kan, J. Y. 2003. Clinical complications with implants and implant prosthesis. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, vol.90, pp. 121-132.
Gross, M., 2008. Occlusion in implant dentistry. A review of the literature of prosthetic determinants and current concepts. Australian Dental Journal, vol.53, no.1, pp. S60-S68.
Jaffin, R. A., and Berman, C. L. , 1991. The excessive loss of Branemark fixtures in type IV bone: A 5-year analysis. Journal Periodontol, vol.62, pp. 2-4.
Johansson, A., Johansson, A. K. , Omar, R. and Carlsson, G. E., 2008. Rehabilitation of the worn dentition. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, vol.35, no.7, pp. 548-566.
Kim Yongsik , Tae-Ju Oh, Carl E. Misch, Hom-Lay Wang, 2005. Occlusal considerations in implant therapy: Clinical guidelines with biomechanical rationale. Clinical Oral Implant Restoration, vol.16, pp. 26-35.
Komiyama O., Lobbezoo, F., Laat, A. D., Iida, T. and Kitagawa, T. 2012. Clinical management of implant prosthesis in patients with bruxism. International Journal of Biomaterials, pp. 6 pages.
Timothy F. K. and Patrick, S. B. 2015. BruxZir® Zirconia: The Next Step in the Evolution of Full-Arch Implant Restorations. [Online]
Available at: https://glidewelldental.com/education/inclusive-dental-implant-magazine/volume-6-issue-1/bruxzir-solid-zirconia-the-next-step-in-the-evolution-of-full-arch-implant-restorations/
Laurell L , Lundgren D , 1987. Interfering occlusal contacts and distribution of chewing and biting forces in dentitions with fixed cantilever prosthesis. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, vol.58, p. 626.
Lundgren, D. & Laurell, L., 1994. Biomechanical aspects of fixed bridgework supported by natural teeth and endosseous implants. Periodontology 2000, vol.4, pp. 23-40.
Manfredini, D. and Lobbezoo, F., 2010. Relationship between bruxism and temporomandibular disorders: a systematic review of literature from 1998 to 2008. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology and Endodontology, vol.109, no.6, pp. e26-e50.
Marcián L. P., Borák, J. Valásek, J. Kaiser, Z. Florian, J. and Wolff. 2014. Finite element analysis of dental implant loading on atrophic and non-atrophic cancellous and cortical mandibular bone - a feasibility study.. Journal Biomechanic, vol.47, no.16, pp. 3830-3836.
Rangert, B.,. Krogh, P. H., Langer, B. and Rocket, N. V. 1995. Bending overload and implant fracture: A retrospective clinical analysis. International Journal Oral Maxillofacical Implants, vol.10, pp. 326-334.
Schwarz, M. S., 2000. Mechanical complications of dental implants. Clinical Oral Implant Research, pp. 16-26.
Sheridan, R. A., Decker, A. M., Alexandra, B. and Hom-lay Wang, 2016. The Role of Occlusion in Implant Therapy: A Comprehensive Updated Review. Implant Dentistry, vol.25, no.6, pp. 829-838.
Shin, Y. K., Han, C. H., Heo, S.J., Kim, S., and Chun, H. J., 2006. Radiographic evaluation of marginal bone level around implants with different neck designs after 1 year. International Journal Of Oral Maxillofacial Implants, vol.21, pp. 789-794.
Remember, at the center of any academic work, lies clarity and evidence. Should you need further assistance, do look up to our Management Assignment Help
Proofreading and Editing$9.00Per Page
Consultation with Expert$35.00Per Hour
Live Session 1-on-1$40.00Per 30 min.
Doing your Assignment with our resources is simple, take Expert assistance to ensure HD Grades. Here you Go....