Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 5, 2026
Bioelectric Analyses of an Osseointegrated Intelligent Implant Design System for Amputees
Published on: July 15, 2009
Progressive recovery of osseoperception as a function of the combination of implant-supported prostheses
Mauro Batista1, Wellington Bonachela, Janir Soares
1Department of Dentistry, Federal University of the Valleys of Jequitinhonha and Mucuri, Diamantina, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Unlabelled:
The extraction of teeth involves the elimination of extremely sensitive periodontal mechanoreceptors, which play an important role in oral sensory perception.
Objectives:
The aim of this study was to evaluate the recovery of interocclusal sensory perception for micro-thickness in individuals with different types of implant-supported prostheses.
Materials And Methods:
Wearers of complete dentures (CDs) comprised the negative control group (group A, n=17). The experimental group consisted of wearers of prostheses supported by osseointegrated implants (Group B, n=29), which was subsequently divided into 4 subgroups: B(1) (n=5)--implant supported overdentures (ISO) occluding with CD; B(2) (n=6)--implant-supported fixed prostheses (ISFP) occluding with CD; B(3) (n=8)--wearers of maxillary and mandibular ISFP, and B(4) (n=10)--ISFP occluding with natural dentition (ND). Individuals with ND represented the positive control group (Group C, n=24). Aluminum foils measuring 10 microm, 24 microm, 30 microm, 50 microm, 80 microm, and 104 microm thickness were placed within the premolar area, adding up to 120 tests for each individual.
Results:
The mean tactile thresholds of groups A, B1, B2, B3, B4, and C were 92 microm, 27 microm, 27 microm, 14 microm, 10 microm, and 10 microm, respectively. [Correction added after publication online 18 April 2008: in the preceding sentence 92 microm, 27 microm, 14 microm, 10 microm and 10 microm, was corrected to 92 microm, 27 microm, 27 microm, 14 microm, 10 microm and 10 microm]. The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed significant difference among groups (P<0.05). The Dunn test revealed that group A was statistically different from groups C, B(3), and B(4), and that B(1) and B(2) were statistically different from group C.
Conclusion:
Progressive recovery of osseoperception as a function of the combination of implant-supported prostheses could be observed. Moreover, ISO and/or ISFP combinations may similarly maximize the recovery of osseoperception.
