Tactile sensibility of single-tooth implants and natural teeth under local anesthesia of the natural antagonistic teeth.
OBJECTIVE
The term osseoperception describes the capability of developing a subtle tactile sensibility over dental implants. The present clinical study aims at clarifying the question of how far tactile sensibility is to be attributed to the periodontium of the natural opposing tooth of the implant.


METHODS
Thirty-two subjects with single-tooth implants with natural opposing teeth were included in this clinical, single-blind, split-mouth study. The natural antagonistic tooth of the implant and the corresponding natural contralateral tooth were anesthetized with a locally infiltrated articaine anesthetic. In a computer-assisted and randomized way, copper foils of varying thickness (0-100 µm) were placed interocclusally between the single-tooth implant and the natural opposing tooth, and between the contralateral pair of natural opposing teeth in order to investigate the active tactile sensibility according to the psychophysical method of constant stimuli and evaluate it statistically by the Weibull distribution.


RESULTS
The average tactile sensibility of the implants with anesthetized antagonists at the 50% value calculated by means of the Weibull distribution was 20 ± 11 µm with a support area (90%-10% value) of 77 ± 89 µm. For the pair of natural teeth, the tactile sensibility at the 50% value was 16 ± 9 µm with a support area of 48.4 ± 93 µm. This resulted in an average intraindividual difference of 3.5 ± 7 µm at the 50% value and 29 ± 93 µm in the support area. The statistical calculations demonstrated an equivalent tactile sensibility (50% value) of the single-tooth implant and the contralateral natural control tooth with the natural antagonists being anesthetized in each case (double t-test, equivalence limit ± 8 µm, P < 0.01, power >80%).


CONCLUSIONS
Apparently, the active tactile sensibility of single-tooth implants with natural opposing teeth is not only to be attributed to the periodontium of the opposing tooth but also to a perception over the implant itself. This could support the hypothesis according to which the implant may have a tactile sensibility of its own.
Enkling
Norbert
N
Department of Prosthodontics, University of Bern, Switzerland. norbert.enkling@zmk.unibe.ch
Heussner
Stefan
S
Nicolay
Claudia
C
Bayer
Stefan
S
Mericske-Stern
Regina
R
Utz
Karl-Heinz
KH
D000328:Adult; D000772:Anesthesia, Local; D000779:Anesthetics, Local / Q000008:administration & dosage; D002355:Carticaine / Q000008:administration & dosage; D015331:Cohort Studies; D019250:Dental Implants, Single-Tooth; D004837:Epinephrine / Q000008:administration & dosage; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008465:Mechanoreceptors / Q000187:drug effects; D008875:Middle Aged; D010519:Periodontium / Q000187:drug effects* / Q000294:innervation; D010812:Physical Stimulation; D010919:Placebos; D012684:Sensory Thresholds / Q000187:drug effects; D016037:Single-Blind Method; D014070:Tooth / Q000187:drug effects*; D014110:Touch / Q000187:drug effects*; D014662:Vasoconstrictor Agents / Q000008:administration & dosage; D055815:Young Adult
D000779:Anesthetics, Local; D010919:Placebos; C030488:Ultracaine D-S; D014662:Vasoconstrictor Agents; D002355:Carticaine; D004837:Epinephrine