PRESERVE YOUR TEETH IN NEW YORK CITY
The Impact of the Brånemark Implant
In the early 1980s, the FDA approved dental implants for use in the United States. The Brånemark implant was the first type approved as a method of tooth replacement.
In the early 1980s, the FDA approved dental implants for use in the United States. The Brånemark implant was the first type approved as a method of tooth replacement.
The implant was made of pure titanium and shaped like a cylinder, with smooth, polished screw-like threads along its surface. Its restorative side featured a small, elevated hexagonal platform known as the “external hex.”
A component called an abutment was attached to the implant using a gold screw. The final restoration—which could be a crown, bridge, or denture—was then placed over the implant.A component called an abutment was attached to the implant using a gold screw. The final restoration—which could be a crown, bridge, or denture—was then placed over the implant.
The History of the Brånemark Implant
The Brånemark design was widely imitated by companies eager to enter the emerging dental implant market. However, none surpassed the Brånemark implant in success or popularity.
Many dentists consider it one of the most thoroughly researched and documented dental implants ever developed. It remains in use worldwide today. However, the Brånemark implant is not without its limitations.
Multiple Surgeries and Long Recovery Times
The traditional Brånemark procedure requires two surgeries.
During the first surgery, the implant is placed into the jawbone and covered with gum tissue. The healing process may take up to six months.
After this recovery period, the patient undergoes a second surgery to uncover the implant. A titanium cylinder called a healing abutment is then attached to the external hex.
Another three to six weeks of healing is required before final impressions can be taken. Only then can the patient receive their new crown, bridge, or denture.
This process can take a considerable amount of time. Clinicians also discovered that the gold screw connecting the abutment to the implant could fracture under certain conditions. This required some patients to undergo additional, time-consuming, and costly office visits for repairs.
However, this was not the most concerning drawback of the Brånemark design.
Once exposed to the oral cavity, the external hex created a microscopic opening at the implant-abutment connection. This opening, known as a micro-gap, was too small for the patient or dentist to see but large enough for bacteria to enter.
Bacteria could colonize the micro-gap, contributing to the gradual loss of bone around the implant platform. Clinicians came to expect and even tolerate this bone loss because it generally developed slowly and did not necessarily result in implant failure.
Are there other dental implant designs available that address these concerns? Check back next week to find out.
