With Dental Implants, It’s Not Just About Biocompatibility
Posted on Wednesday, December 6th, 2017
When it comes to dental implants, there are some who say that so long as they’re “biocompatible” ceramic zirconium, implants are a-ok. But biocompatibility is hardly the issue.
Any kind of implant will necessarily interfere with the body’s self-regulating abilities; will disturb the biological terrain. As Dr. V has noted before,
Biological Terrain Analysis (BTA) shows remarkable adverse changes in the rH2 values – a measure of oxidative stress. When these values are high, as we typically see in clients with implants, both cell and biological terrain functions take a hit. Nutrient uptake is inhibited, as is the delivery of hormone and energetic information. The body’s natural energy state is disturbed.
Lodging an implant into the jaw creates a scenario similar to what happens when you skip a flat stone across the surface of a lake. Think about how the ripples grow smaller and fainter as they continue across the lake and then bounce back. They may be too faint for us to observe with the naked eye, but the effect persists. This is a form of energetic resonance. Likewise, when an implant is placed, there is bioresonance through the extracellular fluid.
Implants also create disturbances along the meridians on which they’re placed. Meridians are your body’s energetic pathways, connecting multiple organs and bodily structures. Disturbances or blockages in one area can affect the other organs on the same meridian, setting the stage for illness or dysfunction at sites far from the mouth. Disturbances caused by implants may be worsened if other metals – such as mercury amalgam “silver” fillings – are present, due to the creation of galvanic currents.
Then there’s the problem of chronic inflammation around the implant and deterioration of the supporting bone – a condition known as peri-implantitis. Mainstream concern has been growing, and now new research suggests the scope of the problem.
The study, just published in the Journal of Clinical Periodontology, aimed to document the long-term prospects for dental implants, analyzing data from patients who received them between 1988 and 1992. Just over 200 were examined 9 to 14 years later, and 86 were re-examined at 20 to 26 years after their implants were placed.
By the third exam, 22.1% of patients had been diagnosed with peri-implantitis. Nearly 55% had been diagnosed with peri-implant mucositis, a condition in which the gum tissue around the implant is chronically inflamed but there aren’t yet signs of bone loss. It’s kind of like what gingivitis is to periodontitis: a precursor to the more destructive condition.
And the more implants, the greater the risk.
That brings us to another new study, this just published in the Journal of Periodontology. This one involved 135 patients with 411 implants, all undergoing therapy to prevent peri-implantitis. The researchers wanted to know how much they understood about dental implants and risks, as well as their attitudes and perceptions.
Frequency of peri-implantitis in the survey was 17.8% at the participant level, with 70% of them reporting high level of post-surgical satisfaction. Worry and concern were frequent findings among patients with peri-implantitis (64%), and 32% reported that living with the disease was terrible. The vast majority of patients (74.1%) did not have knowledge about peri-implant pathology.
Of course, it’s much harder to sell this expensive treatment if you’re totally up front about the risks. Hype sells. Reality? Not so much.
But we believe every patient deserves to understand all the major benefits and risks of all their treatment options – including the option of no treatment at all. After all, you’re the investing time and money in pursing your health goals. We believe your health decisions should be fully informed ones.
Image by Peter Notar, via Wikimedia Commons