J. Duyck et al., The influence of static and dynamic loading on marginal bone reactions around osseointegrated implants: an animal experimental study, CLIN OR IMP, 12(3), 2001, pp. 207-218
Although it is generally accepted that adverse forces can impair osseointeg
ration, the mechanism of this complication is unknown. In this study, stati
c and dynamic loads were applied on 10 mm long implants (Branemark System((
R)), Nobel Biocare, Sweden) installed bicortically in rabbit tibiae to inve
stigate the bone response. Each of 10 adult New Zealand black rabbits had o
ne statically loaded implant (with a transverse force of 29.4 N applied on
a distance of 1.5 mm from the top of the implant, resulting in a bending mo
ment of 4.4 Ncm), one dynamically loaded implant (with a transverse force o
f 14.7 N applied on a distance of 50 mm from the top of the implant, result
ing in a bending moment of 73.5 Ncm, 2.520 cycles in total, applied with a
frequency of 1 Hz), and one unloaded control implant. The loading was perfo
rmed during 14 days. A numerical model was used as a guideline for the appl
ied dynamic load. Histomorphometrical quantifications of the bone to metal
contact area and bone density lateral to the implant were performed on unde
calcified and toluidine blue stained sections. The histological picture was
similar for statically loaded and control implants. Dense cortical lamella
r bone was present around the marginal and apical part of the latter implan
ts with no signs of bone loss. Crater-shaped bone defects and Howship's lac
unae were explicit signs of bone resorption in the marginal bone area aroun
d the dynamically loaded implants. Despite those bone defects, bone islands
were present in contact with the implant surface in this marginal area. Th
is resulted in no significantly lower bone-to-implant contact around the dy
namically loaded implants in comparison with the statically loaded and the
control implants. However, when comparing the amount of bone in the immedia
te surroundings of the marginal part of the implants, significantly (P <0.0
07) less bone volume (density) was present around the dynamically loaded in
comparison with the statically loaded and the control implants. This study
shows that excessive dynamic loads cause crater-like bone defects lateral
to osseointegrated implants.