This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Facial Plastic Surgery  • Biomaterials and Implants  • Alert me on articles by topic

Effects of Placement and Pressure

Arch Facial Plast Surg. 1999;1:265.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

THE ATTEMPT by Pearson and Sherris¹ to evaluate the variability in bone resorption under Silastic implants (Dow Corning, Midland, Mich) met with mixed success.

Clearly, based on this study, there is no difference between subperiosteal and supraperiosteal implants placed on dog mandibles. This seems to contradict some surgeons' impressions developed primarily from clinical observation. Their second conclusion that increased pressure on the implant tends to decrease bone resorption is even more surprising and less well supported by evaluation of their results. This correlation is, as they note, not statistically significant and is not supported by their illustration of commonly occurring mandibular resorption. The authors use the example of "the resorption of the edentulous mandible no longer subject to daily compressive bite forces" to illustrate this theoretical reverse relation between force and bone resorption. Students of facial-skeletal biology have long known that the mandibular alveolus exists primarily to support the dentition. . . . [Full Text of this Article]

RELATED ARTICLE

Resorption Beneath Silastic Mandibular Implants: Effects of Placement and Pressure
David C. Pearson and David A. Sherris
Arch Facial Plast Surg. 1999;1(4):261-264.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT