Lack of integration of smooth titanium surfaces: a working hypothesis based on strains generated in the surrounding...

It has been observed that the polished neck of dental implants does not osseointegrate as do textured surfaces. Similar findings were reported in the orthopedic literature on artificial hip endoprostheses. In Dentistry, lack of osseointegration was attributed to increased pressure on the osseous bed during implant placement, establishment of a physiological "biologic width", stress shielding and lack of adequate biomechanical coupling between the load-bearing implant surface and the surrounding bone. Among the many variables that may affect osseointegration, this analysis proposes to include stress transfer as a significant one. Therefore the present report discusses the relationship between the stresses applied and bone homeostasis. Any viable osseous structure (including the tissue that surrounds the polished implant neck) is subjected to periodic phases of resorption and formation. Clinical and experimental data have shown the detrimental effects of lack of function in that bone mass decreases with time. Due to inadequate mechanical stimuli, bone that is resorbed during normal turnover is redeposited in lesser amounts than previously, a process observed clinically as resorption. The stress ranges which cause bone to resorb, maintain or increase its mass and the level that eventually causes bone to fracture have been delimited in the literature. Applying these values to the situation to dental implants, it follows that if it is to be stable, crestal bone must be subjected to suitable levels of mechanical stimulation. We suggest that smooth surfaces will not provide adequate biomechanical coupling with the bone surrounding the implant neck in that the stress range induced by a polished surface is limited. We propose that the surface texture of threaded, plasma-coated or sandblasted implants generates a heterogeneous stress field around an implant in function. By design, such a stress field includes force levels which are conducive to bone formation. Hence, during the formation phase of bone turnover, osteoblast lineages are much more likely to be stimulated by biomechanical signals of appropriate magnitude.