TopOpen Access Virtual Collections

• Aims and Scope
• Introduction
• About the free online version
• Table of contents     

Virtual issue on real oral rehabilitation

In collaboration with the publisher Blackwell Munksgaard, the editorial team of JOR are proud to introduce yet another new initiative from Journal of Oral Rehabilitation the virtual issue.

The virtual issue will select and highlight a number of recent publications on a particular theme or topic. The advantage being that our readers can easily pursue the advances made and update themselves on a particular topic of interest without having to go back and forth between different issues of the journal.

The first virtual issue of JOR is devoted to the functional aspects of rehabilitation with oral implants, and features six reviews originating from the 1st JOR Summer School in 2005. These reviews were carefully selected to demonstrate that modern implantology is more than osseointegration and technological and procedural considerations. These aspects are clearly also of importance and presented in JOR, for example in the studies on the usefulness of Er:YAG laser preparation of the implant bed on the osseointegration of titanium implants (Schwarz et al. 2006), and mechanical properties such as fracture resistance of implant-supported restorations (Att et al. 2006).

However, since oral rehabilitation can be viewed as the treatment of ailing, injured or disabled patients with the aim to restore normal (oral) health and function and / or to prevent the disability from getting worse, the focus of the six summer school reviews was mainly on the functional aspects. These reviews cover the basic neurobiology of the orofacial region with special implications for oral implants (Sessle 2006; Trulsson 2006; van Steenberghe and Jacobs 2006; Jacobs and van Steenberghe 2006). To complement these reviews, I have chosen a number of timely original contributions for the virtual issue. The study by De Boever et al. (2006) is important because of the exceptionally long observation period, and because it highlights a number of interventions and complications frequently linked to rehabilitation with oral implants. The authors correctly point out that patients also need to know about these aspects before engaging in a costly and complex treatment. Interestingly, De Boever et al. (2006) noted that patients with bruxing habits were at a greater risk of technical complications an issue which is reviewed in depth by Lobbezoo et al. (2006). Restoration of normal function is an important indication for treatment with oral implants and Feine and Lund (2006) discuss the existing knowledge on how best to assess mastication. In their original research report, Stellingsma et al. (2005) used both patient-based measures (i.e. questionnaires) and a masticatory performance test to demonstrate an improvement following three different types of implant treatments. In accordance with the current guidelines Feine, Jacobs et al. (2006) emphasize the importance of using patient-based measures of oral function. Finally, functional aspects of clinical rehabilitation with oral implants, for example, on temporomandibular joint loading, could be enhanced by information from the biomechanical analyses of Maeda et al. (2005). Simulation studies are simulations and require estimation of numerous physiological parameters (e.g. muscle forces), but may play a facilitatory role in the development of clinical treatments to restore function and prevent further disability.

We do hope that JOR readers will appreciate this new initiative, and as always we welcome your feedback. 

Enjoy reading!

Peter Svensson

EIC JOR

References

Schwarz F, Olivier W, Herten M, Sager M, Chaker A, Becker J. Influence of implant bed reparation using an Er:YAG laser on the osseointegration of titanium implants: a histomorphometrical study in dogs. J Oral Rehabil 2007;34:273-81.

Att W, Kurun S, Gerds T, Strub JR. Fracture resistance of single-tooth implant-supported all-ceramic restorations after exposure to the artificial mouth. J Oral Rehabil 2006;33:380-6.