Arnold Medical Pavilion
1221 Madison St, Suite 1116
Seattle, WA 98104
Copyright 1999 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.
Applicable FARS/DFARS Restrictions Apply to Government Use.1999
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. Bone height around teeth does not decrease as a result of a lessening of forces on the teeth.
Bloomquist DS. Discussion of Resorption Beneath Silastic Mandibular ImplantsEffects of Placement and Pressure. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 1999;1(4):265. doi: