Osseointegration
You don't need to be Editor-In-Chief to add or edit content to WikiDoc. You can begin to add to or edit text on this WikiDoc page by clicking on the edit button at the top of this page. Next enter or edit the information that you would like to appear here. Once you are done editing, scroll down and click the Save page button at the bottom of the page.
 |
This article does not cite any references or sources. (August 2006) Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. |
Osseointegration is the direct structural and functional connection between living bone and the surface of a load-bearing artificial implant, typically made of titanium. It is a property virtually unique to titanium, and has enhanced the science of medical bone, and joint replacement techniques.
Theories
Two theories regarding the chemical mechanism by which endosteal implants integrate with bone have been proposed:
- Osseointegration by Dr. Per-Ingvar Brånemark
- Fibro-osseous integration by Dr. A. Weiss
Branemark’s theory of osseointegration
Branemark proposed that implants integrate such that the bone is laid very close to the implant without any intervening connective tissue. The titanium oxide permanently fuses with the bone, as Branemark showed in 1950s. Osseointegration can be defined as,
- Osseous integration, the apparent direct attachment or connection of osseous tissue to an inert alloplastic material without intervening connective tissue.
- The process and resultant apparent direct connection of the endogenous material surface and the host bone tissues without intervening connective tissue.
- The interface between alloplastic material and bone.
Branemark also stated that the implant should not be loaded and left out of function during the healing period for osseous integration to occur.
Weiss' theory of fibro-osseous integration
Weiss' theory states that there is a fibro-osseous ligament formed between the implant and the bone and this ligament can be considered as the equivalent of the periodontal ligament found in the gomphosis. He defends the presence of collagen fibres at the bone-implant interface. He interpreted it as the peri-implantal ligament with an osteogenic effect. He advocates the early loading of the implant.
Osseointegration versus Biointegration
In 1985, Dr. C. de Putter proposed two ways of implant anchorage or retention as mechanical and bioactive. Mechanical retention can be achieved in cases where the implant material is a metal, for example, commercially pure titanium and titanium alloys. In these cases, topological features like vents, slots, dimples, threads (screws), etc. aid in the retention of the implant. There is no chemical bonding and the retention depends on the surface area: the greater the surface area, the greater the contact.
Bioactive retention can be achieved in cases where the implant is coated with bioactive materials such as hydroxyapatite. These bioactive materials stimulate bone formation leading to a physico-chemical bond. The implant is ankylosed with the bone.
See also
Links
 | This medical article is a stub. You can help WikiDoc by expanding it. |
nl:Osseointegratiesr:Остеоинтеграција
Acknowledgement and Attribution Regarding Sources of Content
Some of the initial content on this page may be incorporated in part from copyleft sources in the public domain including wikis such as Wikipedia and AskDrWiki. Drug information for patients came from the The National Library of Medicine. Infectious disease information may have come from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Differential Diagnoses are drawn from clinicians as well as an amalgamation of 3 sources: 1.The Disease Database; 2. Kahan, Scott, Smith, Ellen G. In A Page: Signs and Symptoms. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing, 2004:3; 3. Sailer, Christian, Wasner, Susanne. Differential Diagnosis Pocket. Hermosa Beach, CA: Borm Bruckmeir Publishing LLC, 2002:7 .
