An excellent paper about this topic is a fairly recent systematic review by Mishra et al. that presents the histological, neurophysiological, and psychophysical evidence of osseoperception and also the role of mechanoreceptors in osseoperception. See: doi: 10.1111/jopr.12310
To add to my previous answer; more details about the anatomy and potential regenerative possibilities are reviewed in two nice papers authored by Yan Huang and colleagues, i.e., see: https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12344 (A systematic review on the innervation of peri‐implant tissues with special emphasis on the influence of implant placement and loading protocols) and https://doi.org/10.1038/ijos.2017.1 (Platelet-rich plasma for regeneration of neural feedback pathways around dental implants: a concise review and outlook on future possibilities)
Implant at lamina densa area still has anchoring fibrials, via hemidesmosomes adhered to surrounding tissue. It's the indirect way to osteoperception, so biting force usually over limit with senseless.
Still from lamina sends to periosteum is missing how central nervous system is receiving signal in the absence of continuity
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Physiology
- Physiological Processes
- Stress