TY - BOOK ID - 133484997 TI - Osseointegrated Oral implants : Mechanisms of Implant Anchorage, Threats and Long-Term Survival Rates PY - 2020 PB - Basel, Switzerland MDPI - Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute DB - UniCat KW - Medicine KW - osseointegration KW - dental implant KW - peri-implantitis KW - ligature-induced peri-implantitis KW - aseptic loosening KW - systematic review KW - immune system KW - biomaterials KW - foreign body reaction KW - in vivo study KW - oral implants KW - marginal bone loss KW - immunomodulation KW - mechanotransduction KW - Crestal bone loss KW - osseosufficiency KW - osseoseparation KW - photoacoustic ultrasound KW - brain–bone axis KW - overloading KW - radiography KW - CBCT (cone beam computerized tomography) KW - osteogenesis KW - osteotomy KW - bone healing KW - bone chips KW - drilling tool design KW - fused deposition modeling KW - polyether ether ketone KW - biocomposite KW - orthopedic implant KW - oral implant KW - mechanical properties KW - wettability KW - topography KW - biocompatibility KW - cell adhesion KW - peri-implant endosseous healing KW - dental implantation KW - alveolar bone loss KW - alveolar bone remodeling/regeneration KW - bone biology KW - finite element analysis (FEA) KW - biomechanics KW - cell plasticity KW - dental implants KW - electron microscopy KW - scanning transmission electron microscopy KW - bone-implant interface KW - bone loss KW - overdenture KW - implant survival KW - implant surface KW - soft tissue KW - split-mouth design KW - oral health-related quality of life KW - patient-reported outcome measures KW - biomaterial KW - bone KW - immune KW - implant KW - healing KW - titanium KW - PEEK KW - Cu KW - micro-RNA KW - microarray KW - predictive biomarker KW - epigenomics KW - mucositis KW - diagnosis KW - over-treatment KW - iatrogenic damage KW - abutment height KW - subcrestal implants KW - implant insertion depth KW - vertical mucosal thickness KW - biological width KW - implant installation KW - anchorage technique KW - histology KW - intraosseous temperature KW - finite element model KW - ligature induced peri-implantitis KW - arthroplasty KW - replacement KW - hip KW - hypersensitivity KW - contact KW - allergy and immunology KW - cytokines KW - Interleukin-8 KW - surface properties KW - materials testing KW - implant contamination KW - scanning electron microscopy KW - energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometry KW - convergence KW - clinical study KW - biofilm KW - infection KW - perio-prosthetic joint infection KW - periimplantitis KW - electrolytic cleaning KW - n/a KW - zirconia KW - insertion KW - bone–implant interface KW - heat KW - bone damage KW - early loss KW - augmentation KW - air flow KW - re-osseointegration KW - classification of bone defects KW - dog study KW - brain-bone axis UR - https://www.unicat.be/uniCat?func=search&query=sysid:133484997 AB - In the past, osseointegration was regarded to be a mode of implant anchorage that simulated a simple wound healing phenomenon. Today, we have evidence that osseointegration is, in fact, a foreign body reaction that involves an immunologically derived bony demarcation of an implant to shield it off from the tissues. Marginal bone resorption around an oral implant cannot be properly understood without realizing the foreign body nature of the implant itself. Whereas the immunological response as such is positive for implant longevity, adverse immunological reactions may cause marginal bone loss in combination with combined factors. Combined factors include the hardware, clinical handling as well as patient characteristics that, even if each one of these factors only produce subliminal trauma, when acting together they may result in loss of marginal bone. The role of bacteria in the process of marginal bone loss is smaller than previously believed due to combined defense mechanisms of inflammation and immunological reactions, but if the defense is failing we may see bacterially induced marginal bone loss as well. However, problems with loss of marginal bone threatening implant survival remains relatively uncommon; we have today 10 years of clinical documentation of five different types of implant displaying a failure rate in the range of only 1 to 4 %. ER -