Soft-Tissue Simulation for Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery: Clinical Needs and Technical Aspects

Computerized soft-tissue simulation can provide unprecedented means for predicting facial outlook pre-operatively. Surgeons can virtually perform several surgical plans to have the best surgical results for their patients while considering corresponding soft-tissue outcome. It could be used as an interactive communication tool with their patients as well. There has been comprehensive amount of works for simulating soft-tissue for cranio-maxillofacial surgery. Although some of them have been realized as commercial products, none of them has been fully integrated into clinical practice due to the lack of accuracy and excessive amount of processing time. In this chapter, state-of-the-art and general workflow in facial soft-tissue simulation will be presented, along with an example of patient-specific facial soft-tissue simulation method.

Effective Practice and Experiential Education

The central challenge to educators in the liberal arts as in all areas of study is transfer of learning i.e. how can we design learning environments and instruction to that students will be able to use what they learn in appropriate new contexts? Alfred North Whitehead described this as the problem of ‘inert knowledge’ nearly a century ago and Dewey noted that instruction which helps students reproduce what is studied on exams might not produce the depth of understanding that allows for recognizing the relevance of what is known to a particular situation and the ability to apply it. Knowledge that is not conditionalized (i.e. in which the learner does not know when where and why it is to be used) is inert.

Specialisation and specialist education in prosthetic dentistry in Europe

This presentation reports on the results of a meeting of prosthodontists from selected European countries. The aim of the meeting was to analyse and promote specialisation and specialist education in Prosthetic Dentistry in Europe. Representatives for Europe were selected from the European Prosthodontic Association (EPA) board, the Education and Research Committee of International College of Prosthodontists (ICP), countries with a legally recognised speciality, countries without a recognised speciality but organised training programmes and countries with neither of these situations. Data about specialisation and specialist training in Prosthodontics in Europe was scrutinised and discussed. The programmes for countries with specialist training had relatively similar content, mostly of three years duration. There was strong agreement that a recognised speciality raises the level of care within the discipline for both specialists and non-specialists. In several of the countries where a speciality had been introduced it had been initiated by pressure from public health planning authorities. The conclusions are that from a professional viewpoint an advancement of the speciality over Europe would develop the discipline, improve oral health planning and quality of patient care. A working group for harmonisation was recommended.

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.

Mechanical and technical risks in implant therapy

PURPOSE: To systematically appraise the impact of mechanical/technical risk factors on implant-supported reconstructions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A MEDLINE (PubMed) database search from 1966 to April 2008 was conducted. The search strategy was a combination of MeSH terms and the key words: design, dental implant(s), risk, prosthodontics, fixed prosthodontics, fixed partial denture(s), fixed dental prosthesis (FDP), fixed reconstruction(s), oral rehabilitation, bridge(s), removable partial denture(s), overdenture(s). Randomized controlled trials, controlled trials, and prospective and retrospective cohort studies with a mean follow-up of at least 4 years were included. The material evaluated in each study had to include cases with/without exposure to the risk factor. RESULTS: From 3,568 articles, 111 were selected for full text analysis. Of the 111 articles, 33 were included for data extraction after grouping the outcomes into 10 risk factors: type of retentive elements supporting overdentures, presence of cantilever extension(s), cemented versus screw-retained FDPs, angled/angulated abutments, bruxism, crown/implant ratio, length of the suprastructure, prosthetic materials, number of implants supporting an FDP, and history of mechanical/technical complications. CONCLUSIONS: The absence of a metal framework in overdentures, the presence of cantilever extension(s) > 15 mm and of bruxism, the length of the reconstruction, and a history of repeated complications were associated with increased mechanical/technical complications. The type of retention, the presence of angled abutments, the crown-implant ratio, and the number of implants supporting an FDP were not associated with increased mechanical/technical complications. None of the mechanical/technical risk factors had an impact on implant survival and success rates.