Canine guidance or group function? Rethinking occlusion for implants and bruxers
Updated: 6 days ago
60 Second Journal. For colleagues.
Canine guidance has long been taught as the ideal for lateral movements. It remains a sound choice for many natural dentitions. The question is whether it always suits implants and heavy grinders.
Why implants behave differently
Natural teeth move slightly in their periodontal ligament and give sensory feedback. Implants are ankylosed and transmit force directly to bone.
A 2025 systematic review found that occlusal contacts on implant crowns change after placement: over time they approach or exceed the load on natural teeth, with greater force, larger contact areas and longer contact time.
Clinical reasoning
Natural teeth with healthy support: keep the existing guidance where it works.
Implant-supported canine: consider sharing lateral load across several units rather than loading the implant alone.
Heavy bruxers: spread load, reduce steep guidance, and protect the work with a night guard.
Recheck occlusion on implant restorations at follow-up visits, since contacts change over months.
High-level evidence comparing occlusal schemes on implants remains limited, so these are principles of clinical judgement rather than fixed rules.
See the carousel: View on Instagram
Related: Teeth grinding and jaw pain
References
Assoratgoon I, et al. Occlusal contact changes in implant-supported fixed prostheses: a systematic review. J Oral Rehabil. 2025;52(11):2185-2194. doi:10.1111/joor.70015
Flanagan D. Rationale for mini dental implant treatment. J Oral Implantol. 2021;47(5):437-444. doi:10.1563/aaid-joi-D-19-00317
Comments