Optimal restoration of dental esthetics and function with advanced implant-supported prostheses: a clinical report

For more than 25 years, computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technology has been used in implant restorative dentistry. Today this technology offers a means of milling titanium frameworks that fit dental implants accurately. This report presents a restoratively driven protocol employing advanced implant restorative and surgical techniques. Treatment of a patient with advanced periodontitis with extensive loss of hard and soft tissues is presented. After extraction of the patient's remaining hopeless teeth, dental implants were placed, along with interim, fixed-margin abutments and abutment protection caps. Two days later, acrylic resin fixed-interim prostheses restored the patient's esthetics and partial masticatory function. After implant osseointegration, maxillary, and mandibular frameworks for definitive prostheses were milled from Ti alloy, using one specific CAD/CAM technology. The benefits of this technology are also discussed.     

Implant treatment in an urban general dentistry residency program: a 7-year retrospective study

Survival rates of multiple implant designs placed in various clinical situations average more than 90%. However, little data have been published on the survival rates of implants placed in dental residency programs. This study reports on the outcome of dental implants placed by first-year general dentistry residents in the University of Florida College of Dentistry-Jacksonville Clinic. The patients for this study received both surgical and restorative implant therapy from 1998 to 2005. A total of 263 patients (147 women, 116 men) were treated with dental implants. On average, a patient was 55.5 years old and received 3 implants. A variety of simple and complex restorative procedures were performed. Advanced general dentistry residents in conjunction with supervisory faculty treated all cases. The cumulative implant survival was 96.6%. Follow-up varied from 6 months to 7 years after placement. Cases included implants not yet loaded as well as implants loaded for 6 years or more. The findings of this study compare favorably with published studies and were unexpected in light of the residents' limited clinical experience.     

Implant treatment in an urban general dentistry residency program: a 4-year retrospective study

Little data have been published on the survival rates of implants placed in dental residency programs. This study reports on the outcome of dental implants placed by first-year general dentistry residents in the University of Florida College of Dentistry-Jacksonville Clinic. The patients for this study received both surgical and restorative implant therapy from 1998 to 2002. A total of 108 patients (62 women, 46 men) were treated with dental implants. On average, a patient was 52.9 years old and received 2.6 implants. A variety of simple and complex restorative procedures were performed. Advanced general dentistry residents in conjunction with supervisory faculty treated all cases. The cumulative implant survival was 98.2%. Follow-up varied from 6 months to 4 years after placement. Cases included implants not yet loaded as well as implants loaded for 3 years or more. The findings of this study compare favorably with published studies and were unexpected in light of the residents' limited clinical experience.     

Implant site development: clinical realities of today and the prospects of tissue engineering

The success of dental implants depends on their placement in bone of adequate density and volume in order to achieve primary stability. Optimal esthetics of implants requires their placement in a position approximating that of the natural teeth they replace. However, there is generally at least some degree of atrophy in the sites where implants are to be placed. This atrophy may occur either before or after tooth extraction. Following extraction of teeth, there is commonly alveolar ridge resorption in horizontal and vertical dimensions. Alternatively, some of the oral hard and soft tissues may be destroyed by pathologic conditions such as periodontitis, endodontic infections, or trauma. All of these conditions may potentially compromise the final esthetics and function of implant-supported restorations. During the initial years of the development of the osseointegration protocol, implants were placed with little or no modification of implant sites. Though osseointegration was successfully achieved, esthetic outcome was not a primary objective of therapy at that time. A gradual paradigm shift has occurred in implant dentistry from merely achieving successful osseointegration to achieving final restorative outcomes that mimic natural dentition and their surrounding oral tissues. These objectives have been materialized by advancements in surgical techniques, as well as availability of biomaterials to enable predictable regeneration of oral hard and soft tissues. The objective of the present review is to briefly discuss some of the techniques that are currently available for implant site development.     

The role of implant dentistry in the specialty of endodontics

The routine incorporation of the placement of endosseous dental implants into the armamentaria of endodontists is currently limited, but it is on the rise. A need exists for endodontists to address the increased patient interest in implant-supported restorations. This can be accomplished concomitantly with educating patients about the predictability of various treatment options. Based on the experience that endodontists have in the diagnosis of complex endodontic problems, treating teeth with multiple clinical problems such as resorption, infractions, vertical root fractures, and evaluating the outcomes of various treatment procedures, they are uniquely qualified to discuss objectively with patients the risks and benefits related to treatment options that include endodontics and replacement with dental implants. By incorporating implant dentistry in the endodontic clinical practice, or at least becoming highly knowledgeable about the discipline of implant dentistry, the endodontist will be in a position to provide patients with valuable and practical information and services.     

Evaluation of a predoctoral implant curriculum: does such a program influence graduates' practice patterns?

PURPOSE: Didactic predoctoral dental implant education is part of the curriculum in most US dental schools. However, fewer than half offer laboratory instruction, and only a few allow dental students to place and restore dental implants. The additional time necessary for laboratory and clinical experience encroaches on an already crowded curriculum. Is the additional time necessary in the curriculum for laboratory and clinical experience by dental students reflected by the practice patterns of graduates who have completed such a program over the past 10 years? MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey was designed to determine the implant practice patterns of graduates of the Creighton School of Dentistry, Omaha, Nebraska, for the 10-year period 1988 to 1997. These graduates had all participated in a formal undergraduate didactic and laboratory curriculum in implant dentistry. Approximately half also had the opportunity to place and/or restore dental implants while students. The survey was also sent to graduates (also 1988 to 1997) from a midwestern dental school without a formal laboratory or clinical component (used as a control group). The data were analyzed statistically. RESULTS: In comparison to the control group (56% versus 23%), more than twice as many Creighton graduates restore dental implants as a part of their general practice, surgically place more dental implants, refer more implant patients to surgical specialists, and seek more continuing education hours related to implant dentistry. These conclusions were all supported by statistical analysis of the data. DISCUSSION: Student clinical experience with implant dentistry appears to significantly increase the incorporation of implant dentistry into future dental practices. Even if clinical experience was not an option, a school curriculum which included both didactic and laboratory participation still significantly increased the number of graduates who included implant dentistry in their practices. CONCLUSION: The inclusion of laboratory and clinical experience in implant dentistry in the CUSD undergraduate curriculum resulted in significantly greater participation in implant dentistry at the general practice level.     

Implant dentistry in predoctoral education: The elective approach

In response to interest by dental students and patient needs, an elective program in implant dentistry was started at the University of Detroit Mercy School of Dentistry (UDM) in the summer of 1994. The 1-year program is offered to a group of 10 senior students out of a class of 72. Implant treatment is provided to selected edentulous and partially edentulous patients. Predoctoral students participate in diagnosis and treatment planning, assist in surgical placement, and perform the prosthodontic procedures. A survey was sent to 160 UDM graduates, and 90 responded. Out of the 90 respondents, 35% had participated in the elective implant program and 65% had not. A Pearson correlation matrix was used to analyze their responses. A stronger positive correlation with offering and restoring implants was seen in graduates who had completed the elective program in implant dentistry.     

Immediate implant placement: treatment planning and surgical steps for successful outcomes

Diagnosis and treatment planning are key factors in achieving successful outcomes after placing and restoring implants placed immediately after tooth extraction. The efficacy of immediate implant placement has been established and shown to be predictable if reasonable guidelines are followed. Some or all of the following suggestions, depending on individual circumstances, should be considered when evaluating a patient for dental implants: thorough medical and dental histories, clinical photographs, study casts, periapical and panogram radiographs as well as a linear tomography or computerised tomography of the proposed implant sites. Reasons for tooth extraction include but are not limited to: insufficient crown to root ratios, remaining root length, periodontal attachment levels, periodontal health of teeth adjacent to the proposed implant sites, unrestorable caries, root fractures with large endodontic posts, root resorption, teeth with deep furcation invasions being considered as abutments for fixed partial dentures and questionable teeth in need of endodontic retreatment.     

Retrospective case series analysis of the factors determining immediate implant placement

Implant placement at the time of extraction has become an acceptable treatment option. The formation of a restorative treatment plan frequently requires the removal of questionable and hopeless teeth. This retrospective case series analysis reports the reasons for tooth removal before immediate implant placement and provides a rationale for removing questionable and hopeless teeth. Root length is also analyzed as related to tooth loss. Between September 1986 and December 1998, 460 teeth were removed from 282 patients. Reasons for removal were advanced periodontal disease, endodontic complications, nonrestorable caries, roots fractures, short roots (< 14 mm in length), root resorption, and loosened posts. Implants were placed at the time of extraction. Tallies, frequency distributions, and percentages were used to determine individual and multiple reasons for extraction. For teeth with short roots, computerized measurements were made from periapical x-rays. Advanced periodontal disease and restored endodontically treated teeth with posts were the primary reasons for tooth extraction. Dental implants replaced 305 maxillary and 155 mandibular teeth.     

Rationale for dental implants

The clinical replacement of lost natural teeth by osseointegrated implants has represented one of the most significant advances in restorative dentistry. Two decades ago, a majority of dentists were sceptical about implants and rejected them entirely. Today it is rare to find a practitioner who does not work with dental implants or who is not actively participating in one of the many seminars or courses offered by universities, professional societies and implant manufacturers.     

Teaching and assessment of implant dentistry in undergraduate and postgraduate education: a European consensus

This paper constitutes a summary of the consensus documents agreed at the First European Workshop on Implant Dentistry University Education held in Prague on 19–22 June 2008. Implant dentistry is becoming increasingly important treatment alternative for the restoration of missing teeth, as patients expectations and demands increase. Furthermore, implant related complications such as peri-implantitis are presenting more frequently in the dental surgery. This consensus paper recommends that implant dentistry should be an integral part of the undergraduate curriculum. Whilst few schools will achieve student competence in the surgical placement of implants this should not preclude the inclusion of the fundamental principles of implant dentistry in the undergraduate curriculum such as the evidence base for their use, indications and contraindications and treatment of the complications that may arise. The consensus paper sets out the rationale for the introduction of implant dentistry in the dental curriculum and the knowledge base for an undergraduate programme in the subject. It lists the competencies that might be sought without expectations of surgical placement of implants at this stage and the assessment methods that might be employed. The paper also addresses the competencies and educational pathways for postgraduate education in implant dentistry.     

Immediate implant placement: diagnosis, treatment planning and treatment steps/or successful outcomes

Diagnosis and treatment planning are key factors in achieving successful outcomes after placing and restoring implants placed immediately after tooth extraction. The efficacy of immediate implant placement has been established and shown to be predictable if reasonable guidelines are followed. Some or all of the following suggestions, depending on individual circumstances should be considered when evaluating a patient for dental implants: thorough medical and dental histories, clinical photographs, study casts, periapical and panogram radiographs, as well as a linear tomography or computerized tomography of the proposed implant sites. Reasons for tooth extraction include, but are not limited to, insufficient crown to root ratios, remaining root length, periodontal attachment levels, periodontal health of teeth adjacent to the proposed implant sites, unrestorable caries, root fractures with large endodontic posts, root resorption, teeth with deep furcation invasions being considered as abutments for fixed partial dentures, and questionable teeth in need of endodontic retreatment. Teeth requiring root amputations, hemisections or advanced periodontal procedures may have a questionable prognosis, and patients should be given the implant option before these procedures are implemented. Similarly, nonvital teeth, fractured at the gingival margin with roots shorter than 13 mm should be considered for the implant option. This review will describe the steps for immediate implant placement at the time of extraction as well as the "gap" and socket preservation.     

Dental dilemmas: Endodontics or dental implants?

This narrative review explores treatment planning options in restorative dentistry. The growth of dental implants, as an accessible and predictable treatment option, gives practitioners a useful tool for managing the missing tooth or teeth with a hopeless prognosis. Traditionally, endodontics and fixed prosthodontics have been used to restore teeth and spaces where the outlook for such treatment appears reasonable. Practitioners may, however, question the predictability and cost effectiveness of such an approach where, at times, it might appear that replacement of a compromised tooth with a dental implant could be a more predictable option. The evidence base for these treatment options is explored and discussed, and suggestions are made for future management strategies. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A clear knowledge and understanding of the scientific literature for implants and endodontic treatment is necessary if practitioners are to make an evidence-based approach when treatment planning these modalities for their patients. This is particularly true in cases where there may appear to be a reasonable choice between the two of these.     

Placement and Restoration of Implants by Predoctoral Students: The Creighton Experience

Teaching of implant dentistry in the predoctoral dental curriculum has evolved dramatically over the past 20 years. In 1974, only one third of American dental schools addressed the topic of implants. Today, 48 of the 54 American dental schools have predoctoral curricula. The Creighton University experience offers some unique and instructive insights into a 10-year process of developing and implementing a predoctoral implant dentistry curriculum. All interested students may perform both the surgical placement and restoration of implant prostheses. Clinical instruction involves all restorative and surgical faculty members. Favorable 3-year (91%) and 5-year (87%) surgical success rates have been maintained. This article presents one university's program for examination and discussion.     

The importance of dental implants

Implant dentistry has evolved into the mainstream of restorative practices all over the world. Maintenance of bone after tooth loss to improve or maintain facial esthetics and improved retention, function, and performance of removable restorations are only some of the advantages for the edentulous patient. No longer are implants considered only when traditional restorations cannot be fabricated. Evidence-based reports indicate implant restorations last longer than those on teeth and the abutment teeth are at less risk of loss or complication.     

Extractions, immediate implant placement and ridge preservation utilizing alloplastic bone graft material. Report of a case

A case report of extractions of periodontally involved teeth with immediate implant placement and ridge preservation using alloplastic material is discussed. The bone graft substitute was for bone maintenance in the extraction sockets and around the dental implants. The case is followed for over one year through the restorative phase.     

In the dental implant era,why do we still bother saving teeth?

Teeth are vital sensory organs that contribute to our daily activities of living. Unfortunately, teeth can be lost for several reasons including trauma, caries, and periodontal disease. Although dental trauma injuries and caries are more frequently encountered in a younger population, tooth loss because of periodontal disease occurs in the older population. In the dental implant era, the trend sometimes seems to be to extract compromised teeth and replace them with dental implants. However, the long‐term prognosis of teeth might not be comparable with the prognosis of dental implants. Complications, failures, and diseases such as peri‐implantitis are not uncommon, and, despite popular belief, implants are not 99% successful. Other treatment options that aim to save compromised or diseased teeth such as endodontic treatment, periodontal treatment, intentional replantation, and autotransplantation should be considered on an individual basis. These treatments have competing success rates to dental implants but, more importantly, retain the natural tooth in the dentition for a longer period of time. These options are important to discuss in detail during treatment planning with patients in order to clarify any misconceptions about teeth and dental implants. In the event a tooth does have to be extracted, procedures such as decoronation and orthodontic extrusion might be useful to preserve hard and soft tissues for future dental implant placement. Regardless of the treatment modality, it is critical that strict maintenance and follow‐up protocols are implemented and that treatment planning is ethically responsible and evidence based.     

Teaching implant dentistry in the predoctoral curriculum: a report from the ADEA Implant Workshop's survey of deans

In 2004, a survey of the deans of U.S. and Canadian dental schools was conducted to determine the implant dentistry curriculum structure and the extent of incorporating implant dentistry clinical treatment into predoctoral programs. The questionnaire was mailed to the deans of the fifty-six dental schools in advance of the ADEA Implant Workshop conference held in Arizona in November 2004. Out of the fifty-six, thirty-nine responded, yielding a response rate of 70 percent. Thirty-eight schools (97 percent) reported that their students received didactic instruction in dental implants, while one school (3 percent) said that its students did not. Thirty schools (86 percent) reported that their students received clinical experience, while five schools (14 percent) reported that theirs did not. Four schools (10 percent) did not respond to this question. Fifty-one percent of the students actually receive the clinical experience in restoring implants, with the range of 5-100 percent. Of those schools that provide clinical experience in restoring implants, four schools (13 percent) reported that it is a requirement for them, while twenty-eight schools (88 percent) reported that it is not a requirement for them. Three schools (9 percent) did not respond. The fee for implants is 45 percent higher than a crown or a denture, with a range of 0-100 percent. Twenty-nine schools (85 percent) indicated that they did receive free components from implant companies, while five schools (15 percent) did not. The conclusions of this report are as follows: 1) most schools have advanced dental education programs; 2) single-tooth implant restorations are performed at the predoctoral level in most schools; 3) implant-retained overdenture prostheses are performed at the predoctoral level in most schools; 4) there is no predoctoral clinical competency requirement for surgical implant placement in all schools that responded to the survey; 5) there is no predoctoral clinical competency requirement for implant prosthodontics in most schools that responded to the survey; 6) prosthodontic specialty faculty are often responsible for teaching implant prosthodontics at the predoctoral level; 7) periodontics and oral and maxillofacial faculty are commonly responsible for teaching implant surgery at the predoctoral level; 8) support from implant companies is common for dental schools, with most providing for implant components at discounted costs; and 9) there is a lack of adequately trained faculty in implant dentistry, which is a significant challenge in providing predoctoral students with clinical experience with dental implants.     

Distraction osteogenesis: a treatment tool to improve baseline conditions for esthetic restorations on immediately placed dental implants--a case report

Replacement of two adjacent teeth in an anterior maxilla with deficient hard and soft tissues appears to be the utmost challenge in implant dentistry in the esthetic zone. In this case report, baseline conditions for implant placement were improved by alveolar distraction to enhance hard and soft tissues around the maxillary central incisors. Three months after the active phase of distraction, the roots of the central incisors were extracted and two screw-type dental implants were immediately placed into the extraction sockets. For immediate provisionalization, acrylic resin crowns were fabricated on UCLA abutments, providing the ideal emergence profile to support the periimplant soft tissue. Six months after implant placement, the prosthetic restoration of the case was finished with ceramic crowns cemented to individually fabricated zirconium oxide abutments. The described treatment strategy appears to have a great potential to restore natural esthetics in cases with major tissue deficiencies in the esthetic zone.