Biomaterials and biomechanics of oral and maxillofacial implants: current status and future developments

Abstract

Research in biomaterials and biomechanics has fueled a large part of the significant revolution associated with osseointegrated implants. Additional key areas that may become even more important--such as guided tissue regeneration, growth factors, and tissue engineering--could not be included in this review because of space limitations. All of this work will no doubt continue unabated; indeed, it is probably even accelerating as more clinical applications are found for implant technology and related therapies. An excellent overall summary of oral biology and dental implants recently appeared in a dedicated issue of Advances in Dental Research. Many advances have been made in the understanding of events at the interface between bone and implants and in developing methods for controlling these events. However, several important questions still remain. What is the relationship between tissue structure, matrix composition, and biomechanical properties of the interface? Do surface modifications alter the interfacial tissue structure and composition and the rate at which it forms? If surface modifications change the initial interface structure and composition, are these changes retained? Do surface modifications enhance biomechanical properties of the interface? As current understanding of the bone-implant interface progresses, so will development of proactive implants that can help promote desired outcomes. However, in the midst of the excitement born out of this activity, it is necessary to remember that the needs of the patient must remain paramount. It is also worth noting another as-yet unsatisfied need. With all of the new developments, continuing education of clinicians in the expert use of all of these research advances is needed. For example, in the area of biomechanical treatment planning, there are still no well-accepted biomaterials/biomechanics "building codes" that can be passed on to clinicians. Also, there are no readily available treatment-planning tools that clinicians can use to explore "what-if" scenarios and other design calculations of the sort done in modern engineering. No doubt such approaches could be developed based on materials already in the literature, but unfortunately much of what is done now by clinicians remains empirical. A worthwhile task for the future is to find ways to more effectively deliver products of research into the hands of clinicians.