Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Aug 18;14(16):4644.
doi: 10.3390/ma14164644.

Active Tactile Sensibility of Brånemark Protocol Prostheses: A Case-Control Clinical Study

Nathalia Moraes  1 , Eduardo Moraes  2 , Tiago Anastacio  1 , Licínio Silva  3 , Aldir Machado  1 , José Schoichet  1 , Raphael Monte Alto  1 , Rafael Mello-Machado  3 , Angelo Cardarelli  4 , Carlos Fernando de Almeida Barros Mourão  5 , Priscila Casado  1 , Georgios Romanos  6
Affiliations

Active Tactile Sensibility of Brånemark Protocol Prostheses: A Case-Control Clinical Study

Nathalia Moraes et al. Materials (Basel). .

Abstract

Few studies have assessed active tactile sensibility in patients rehabilitated with implants. Improved knowledge about functional tactile sensibility will contribute to several clinical applications, such as protocols for immediate loading, prosthesis design, occlusal improvement in implantology, and physiological integration of implant-supported prostheses. The present study evaluated active tactile sensibility in patients rehabilitated with Brånemark-type mandibular prostheses that impede the total mucosa-supported maxillary prosthesis. Thirty-five subjects participated in this study. The experimental group (n = 18) inclusion criteria were as follows: Brånemark-type prosthesis and a total mucosa-supported maxillary prosthesis. The control group (n = 17) was composed of participants with complete healthy dentition. Carbon foils with different thicknesses (12 μm, 24 μm, 40 μm, 80 μm, and 200 μm) were placed in the premolar region to evaluate the brink of active oral tactile sensibility. The researchers assessed the participants 120 times. After evaluation, we observed a statistical difference (p < 0.05) between the groups. Additionally, the degree of sensibility was found for all thicknesses, except for 12 μm, on both sides. There was a more significant increase in perception in the control group as the carbon thickness increased. The tactile sensibility threshold was 2.5 times greater for participants with prostheses. Thus, the tactile sensibility for mandibular implant-supported and maxillary mucosa-supported prostheses is significantly lower than that of dentate patients, which was detected above the thickness of 80 μm; in patients with natural dentition, different thicknesses were seen starting from 24 μm.

Keywords: active tactile sensibility; clinical research; dental implant; occlusion; prosthodontics.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Clinical aspect of Brånemark protocol mandibular prostheses (experimental group), showing total implant-supported prosthesis.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Radiographic aspect of Brånemark protocol mandibular prostheses (experimental group), showing external hexagon implants supporting a fixed mandibular prosthesis.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Evaluation of active tactile sensibility with carbon sheets in the premolar area of a participant with Branemark protocol prostheses (experimental group). The lip retractor facilitated access.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Evaluation of active tactile sensibility with carbon sheets in the premolar area of a participant (control group).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Differences between the groups studied, considering the thicknesses and p-values. Values of p < 0.05 were considered significant.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Adell R., Lekholm U., Rockler B., Brånemark P.I. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int. J. Oral Surg. 1981;10:387–416. doi: 10.1016/S0300-9785(81)80077-4. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Zarb G.A., Schmitt A. The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants: The Toronto study. Part I: Surgical results. J. Prosthet. Dent. 1990;63:451–457. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(90)90237-7. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Batista M., Bonachela W., Soares J. Progressive recovery of osseoperception as a function of the combination of implant-supported prostheses. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2008;19:565–569. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01529.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bhatnagar V.M., Karani J.T., Khanna A., Badwaik P., Pai A. Osseoperception: An Implant Mediated Sensory Motor Control- A Review. J. Clin. Diag. Res. JCDR. 2015;9:18–20. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2015/14349.6532. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Abarca M., van Steenberghe D., Malevez C., Jacobs R. The neurophysiology of osseointegrated oral implants. A clinically underestimated aspect. J. Oral Rehabil. 2006;33:161–169. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2005.01556.x. - DOI - PubMed