Talk:Osseointegration

Suspected copyvio
segments of text like without any intervening connective tissue. Fig 39.5. worry me. Where is this figure? In some text that was copy/pasted to make the article? is this a copy-vio? Malcolm Farmer 23:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, this was plagerized: http://www.answers.com/topic/osseointegration —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.62.251 (talk • contribs)

Please note that answers.com reproduces Wikipedia articles, and their article is CLEARLY attributed to Wikipedia. John254 01:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hydroxyapatite
Hydroxyapatite can also osseointegrate. It is a common application of bone grafting so the comment about it only being attributable to titanium is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.114.140 (talk) 02:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I added that.--Patrick (talk) 08:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Merger with "dental implant"
Merging this page with dental implant is not appropriate because osseointegrtion is common to all feild not just dentistry —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.61.63.253 (talk • contribs).


 * Um, no one suggested a merger with Dental implant, as far as I know. —Keenan Pepper 03:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Osseointegrated implant is what was meant. Frankly, it seems to me that the implant article as it stands needs to be disambiguated to make room for implants of all (osseointegrating) varieties, not just dental, but as I'm not really familiar with the dentistry & medical nomenclature right now, I'm going to hold off till I can poke around later & see how to best make it fit.  That said, a merger between the two probably isn't needed, if the stubbiness can be overcome somewhat, as the difference between the process of osseointegration & the peculiarites of implants of various types are almost certainly broad of spectrum enough to warrent their own cornor of Wikipedia.  mordicai. 17:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Which, I guess, is me casting my vote for NO on the issue of a merger. mordicai. 17:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Advert
I'm not 100% certain, but I suspect an unnecessary commercial reference in this sentence (in Osseointegration section): "In studies performed using 3M™ ESPE™ MDI (Mini dental implants), it was noted that the absence of micromotion at the bone-implant interface was necessary to enable proper osseointegration.[16]"  I don't know if the referenced article adds anything positive at all, but with no knowledge of the subject, I hesitated to rewrite the suspect sentence (e.g. "The slightest motion of an implant within the bone can prevent osseointegration.")  Perhaps those with more knowledge can evaluate this bit and take action. Egmonster (talk) 02:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Update
A lot of the information in this article is cited from old sources dating back more than 25 years ago. I have updated the article to reflect our current knowledge of osseointegration.Jlayerbear (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal
There's a tiny little article about the push out test here. It has utility, but I believe it needs to be added — along with information about the pull-out test, push-in test etc. — in a new section of this article called "Testing." However, I'm not sure if this is THE article to include it in. If not this article, is there a better article to discuss testing of bone-implant interfaces? Perhaps someone in the know can comment and contribute a paragraph about this topic either here or on an appropriate article. A few related sources:


 * Testing of Bone-Implant Interface (1998)
 * Features Shared by Pushout and Pullout Tests (1999)
 * Extended push-out test to characterize the failure of bone-implant interface (2005)
 * Comparison of push-in versus pull-out tests on bone-implant interfaces of rabbit tibia dental implant healing model (2013)

Lostraven (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Cementum - clarification needed for non-experts
I refer to this paragraph: "Other complications may arise even in the absence of external impact. One issue is the growing of cement.[27] In normal cases, the absence of cementum on the implant surface prevents the attachment of collagen fibers. This is normally the case due to the absence of cementum progenitor cells in the area receiving the implant. However, when such cells are present, cement may form on or around the implant surface, and a functional collagen attachment may attach to it.[28]"

Without going to the references, it is not clear whether this issue with cementum is a good thing or a bad thing. This needs to be clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.142.162 (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Student Project at Uppsala University
I want to inform you that we (a group of five students) have a project at Uppsala University to improve Wikipedia as part of our Biomateris course. As we are editing the text in our private sandbox and consult our professor first before transfering the changes to this page, there might be several changes made within a short time. Do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.Schächätaler (talk) 09:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Update 1: While looking for more information about metal foams we stumbled uppon the new/recent wikipedia article about Titanium foam/Biomedical_implants. As most of the written text is valid for metal foams in general, we think it might better fit into this article, as one of the subsetions of the Titanium Foam article is actually called Osseointegration. Do you have any suggestions regarding this matter? Schächätaler (talk) 09:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

tone problem

 * Brånemark spent almost 30 years fighting the scientific community for acceptance of osseointegration as a viable treatment. In Sweden he was often openly ridiculed at science conferences. His university stopped funding for his research, forcing him to open a private clinic to continue treating patients. Eventually an emerging breed of young academics started to notice the work being done in Sweden. …

This smacks of puffery; rewrite? —Tamfang (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)