An outline of competencies and the appropriate postgraduate educational pathways in implant dentistry

The use of dental implants has become a widely accepted and well-documented treatment option offering to both patients and dentists an alternative to traditional treatment modalities and at the same time opening a brand new area in dental postgraduate education. As such, it is necessary to define the competencies that the graduate student/dentist will need at the different levels of clinical practice in Implant Dentistry and the educational pathways that are required to convey those competencies in a structured manner. The present position paper provides an initial suggestion for the knowledge, skills and behaviour necessary for a graduate student to practice implant dentistry at the different levels of clinical complexity. An outline of the necessary competencies and structure of various levels of postgraduate university courses is provided together with different educational approaches to support them. The present paper should be evaluated as a platform for discussion for future development of postgraduate curricula in implant dentistry rather than a manual on how to design and operate such curricula.

Dental phobia is no contraindication for oral implant therapy

OBJECTIVES Dental phobia is a psychological disease and a possible contraindication for implant therapy. The study aimed to show that implant therapy in dental-phobic patients (DP, test group) after adequate psychological and dental pretreatment (PDPT) is successfully possible and results in a similar implant prognosis as in nonfearful patients (NF, control group). METHOD AND MATERIALS 15 DP with PDPT and 15 NF were treated with dental implants and were re-evaluated 2 to 4 years after denture-mounting regarding: alteration of dental anxiety (Hierarchical Anxiety Questionnaire [HAQ], Visual Analog Scale [VAS]), patient satisfaction and compliance, implant success, and peri-implant health. Statistical tests of non-inferiority DP versus NF were performed with Hodges-Lehmann estimators and respective one-sided 97.5% confidence intervals of Moses, and pairwise testings with Mann-Whitney test. RESULTS The DP test group rated its anxiety significantly lower at follow- up than at baseline (PHAQ < .001). However, at follow-up, anxiety was still higher in DP than in NF (PHAQ = .046; PVAS < .001). Implant success at follow-up was 100%. Oral health was equally good in DP and NF patients. At follow-up, all patients were satisfied with implant therapy, but compliance was better for NF (100%) than for DP (73% dental checkup; 67% dental hygienist). CONCLUSION Implant therapy can be successfully performed in DP patients with PDPT as phobia is not negatively influenced by the invasive implant therapy. However, motivation for professional maintenance programs remains challenging.

In vitro precision of fit of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing titanium and zirconium dioxide bars

OBJECTIVES Optical scanners combined with computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technology provide high accuracy in the fabrication of titanium (TIT) and zirconium dioxide (ZrO) bars. The aim of this study was to compare the precision of fit of CAD/CAM TIT bars produced with a photogrammetric and a laser scanner. METHODS Twenty rigid CAD/CAM bars were fabricated on one single edentulous master cast with 6 implants in the positions of the second premolars, canines and central incisors. A photogrammetric scanner (P) provided digitized data for TIT-P (n=5) while a laser scanner (L) was used for TIT-L (n=5). The control groups consisted of soldered gold bars (gold, n=5) and ZrO-P with similar bar design. Median vertical distance between implant and bar platforms from non-tightened implants (one-screw test) was calculated from mesial, buccal and distal scanning electron microscope measurements. RESULTS Vertical microgaps were not significantly different between TIT-P (median 16μm; 95% CI 10-27μm) and TIT-L (25μm; 13-32μm). Gold (49μm; 12-69μm) had higher values than TIT-P (p=0.001) and TIT-L (p=0.008), while ZrO-P (35μm; 17-55μm) exhibited higher values than TIT-P (p=0.023). Misfit values increased in all groups from implant position 23 (3 units) to 15 (10 units), while in gold and TIT-P values decreased from implant 11 toward the most distal implant 15. SIGNIFICANCE CAD/CAM titanium bars showed high precision of fit using photogrammetric and laser scanners. In comparison, the misfit of ZrO bars (CAM/CAM, photogrammetric scanner) and soldered gold bars was statistically higher but values were clinically acceptable.

Virtual implant planning in the edentulous maxilla: criteria for decision making of prosthesis design

OBJECTIVES To evaluate prosthetic parameters in the edentulous anterior maxilla for decision making between fixed and removable implant prosthesis using virtual planning software. MATERIAL AND METHODS CT- or DVT-scans of 43 patients (mean age 62 ± 8 years) with an edentulous maxilla were analyzed with the NobelGuide software. Implants (≥3.5 mm diameter, ≥10 mm length) were virtually placed in the optimal three-dimensional prosthetic position of all maxillary front teeth. Anatomical and prosthetic landmarks, including the cervical crown point (C-Point), the acrylic flange border (F-Point), and the implant-platform buccal-end (I-Point) were defined in each middle section to determine four measuring parameters: (1) acrylic flange height (FLHeight), (2) mucosal coverage (MucCov), (3) crown-Implant distance (CID) and (4) buccal prosthesis profile (ProsthProfile). Based on these parameters, all patients were assigned to one of three classes: (A) MucCov ≤ 0 mm and ProsthProfile≥45(0) allowing for fixed prosthesis, (B) MucCov = 0-5 mm and/or ProsthProfile = 30(0) -45(0) probably allowing for fixed prosthesis, and (C) MucCov ≥ 5 mm and/or ProsthProfile ≤ 30(0) where removable prosthesis is favorable. Statistical analyses included descriptive methods and non-parametric tests. RESULTS Mean values were for FLHeight 10.0 mm, MucCov 5.6 mm, CID 7.4 mm, and ProsthProfile 39.1(0) . Seventy percent of patients fulfilled class C criteria (removable), 21% class B (probably fixed), and 2% class A (fixed), while in 7% (three patients) bone volume was insufficient for implant planning. CONCLUSIONS The proposed classification and virtual planning procedure simplify the decision-making process regarding type of prosthesis and increase predictability of esthetic treatment outcomes. It was demonstrated that in the majority of cases, the space between the prosthetic crown and implant platform had to be filled with prosthetic materials.

Improvements in Implant Dentistry over the Last Decade: Comparison of Survival and Complication Rates in Older and Newer Publications

Purpose: The objective of this systematic review was to assess and compare the survival and complication rates of implant-supported prostheses reported in studies published in the year 2000 and before, to those reported in studies published after the year 2000. Materials and Methods: Three electronic searches complemented by manual searching were conducted to identify 139 prospective and retrospective studies on implant-supported prostheses. The included studies were divided in two groups: a group of 31 older studies published in the year 2000 or before, and a group of 108 newer studies published after the year 2000. Survival and complication rates were calculated using Poisson regression models, and multivariable robust Poisson regression was used to formally compare the outcomes of older and newer studies. Results: The 5-year survival rate of implant-supported prostheses was significantly increased in newer studies compared with older studies. The overall survival rate increased from 93.5% to 97.1%. The survival rate for cemented prostheses increased from 95.2% to 97.9%; for screw-retained reconstruction, from 77.6% to 96.8%; for implant-supported single crowns, from 92.6% to 97.2%; and for implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs), from 93.5% to 96.4%. The incidence of esthetic complications decreased in more recent studies compared with older ones, but the incidence of biologic complications was similar. The results for technical complications were inconsistent. There was a significant reduction in abutment or screw loosening by implant-supported FDPs. On the other hand, the total number of technical complications and the incidence of fracture of the veneering material was significantly increased in the newer studies. To explain the increased rate of complications, minor complications are probably reported in more detail in the newer publications. Conclusions: The results of the present systematic review demonstrated a positive learning curve in implant dentistry, represented in higher survival rates and lower complication rates reported in more recent clinical studies. The incidence of esthetic, biologic, and technical complications, however, is still high. Hence, it is important to identify these complications and their etiology to make implant treatment even more predictable in the future.

Esthetic outcomes following immediate and early implant placement in the anterior maxilla: a systematic review.

PURPOSE The objectives of this systematic review are (1) to quantitatively estimate the esthetic outcomes of implants placed in postextraction sites, and (2) to evaluate the influence of simultaneous bone augmentation procedures on these outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS Electronic and manual searches of the dental literature were performed to collect information on esthetic outcomes based on objective criteria with implants placed after extraction of maxillary anterior and premolar teeth. All levels of evidence were accepted (case series studies required a minimum of 5 cases). RESULTS From 1,686 titles, 114 full-text articles were evaluated and 50 records included for data extraction. The included studies reported on single-tooth implants adjacent to natural teeth, with no studies on multiple missing teeth identified (6 randomized controlled trials, 6 cohort studies, 5 cross-sectional studies, and 33 case series studies). Considerable heterogeneity in study design was found. A meta-analysis of controlled studies was not possible. The available evidence suggests that esthetic outcomes, determined by esthetic indices (predominantly the pink esthetic score) and positional changes of the peri-implant mucosa, may be achieved for single-tooth implants placed after tooth extraction. Immediate (type 1) implant placement, however, is associated with a greater variability in outcomes and a higher frequency of recession of > 1 mm of the midfacial mucosa (eight studies; range 9% to 41% and median 26% of sites, 1 to 3 years after placement) compared to early (type 2 and type 3) implant placement (2 studies; no sites with recession > 1 mm). In two retrospective studies of immediate (type 1) implant placement with bone graft, the facial bone wall was not detectable on cone beam CT in 36% and 57% of sites. These sites had more recession of the midfacial mucosa compared to sites with detectable facial bone. Two studies of early implant placement (types 2 and 3) combined with simultaneous bone augmentation with GBR (contour augmentation) demonstrated a high frequency (above 90%) of facial bone wall visible on CBCT. Recent studies of immediate (type 1) placement imposed specific selection criteria, including thick tissue biotype and an intact facial socket wall, to reduce esthetic risk. There were no specific selection criteria for early (type 2 and type 3) implant placement. CONCLUSIONS Acceptable esthetic outcomes may be achieved with implants placed after extraction of teeth in the maxillary anterior and premolar areas of the dentition. Recession of the midfacial mucosa is a risk with immediate (type 1) placement. Further research is needed to investigate the most suitable biomaterials to reconstruct the facial bone and the relationship between long-term mucosal stability and presence/absence of the facial bone, the thickness of the facial bone, and the position of the facial bone crest.

Is a grooved collar implant design superior to a machined design regarding bone level alteration? An observational pilot study.

OBJECTIVE This retrospective observational pilot study examined differences in peri-implant bone level changes (ΔIBL) between two similar implant types differing only in the surface texture of the neck. The hypothesis tested was that ΔIBL would be greater with machined-neck implants than with groovedneck implants. METHOD AND MATERIALS 40 patients were enrolled; n = 20 implants with machined (group 1) and n = 20 implants with a rough, grooved neck (group 2), all placed in the posterior mandible. Radiographs were obtained after loading (at 3 to 9 months) and at 12 to 18 months after implant insertion. Case number calculation with respect to ΔIBL was conducted. Groups were compared using a Brunner-Langer model, the Mann-Whitney test, the Wilcoxon signed rank test, and linear model analysis. RESULTS After the 12- to 18-month observation period, mean ΔIBL was -1.11 ± 0.92 mm in group 1 and -1.25 ± 1.23 mm in group 2. ΔIBL depended significantly on time (P < .001), but not on group. In both groups, mean marginal ΔIBL was significantly less than -1.5 mm. Only insertion depth had a significant influence on the amount of periimplant bone loss (P = .013). Case number estimate testing for a difference between group 1 and 2 with a power of 90% revealed a sample size per group of 1,032 subjects. CONCLUSION ΔIBL values indicated that both implant designs fulfilled implant success criteria, and the modification of implant neck texture had no significant influence on ΔIBL.

Clinical Performance of Screw- Versus Cement-Retained Fixed Implant-Supported Reconstructions- A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE To assess the survival outcomes and reported complications of screw- and cement-retained fixed reconstructions supported on dental implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS A Medline (PubMed), Embase, and Cochrane electronic database search from 2000 to September 2012 using MeSH and free-text terms was conducted. Selected inclusion and exclusion criteria guided the search. All studies were first reviewed by abstract and subsequently by full-text reading by two examiners independently. Data were extracted by two examiners and statistically analyzed using a random effects Poisson regression. RESULTS From 4,324 abstracts, 321 full-text articles were reviewed. Seventy-three articles were found to qualify for inclusion. Five-year survival rates of 96.03% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 93.85% to 97.43%) and 95.55% (95% CI: 92.96% to 97.19%) were calculated for cemented and screw-retained reconstructions, respectively (P = .69). Comparison of cement and screw retention showed no difference when grouped as single crowns (I-SC) (P = .10) or fixed partial dentures (I-FDP) (P = .49). The 5-year survival rate for screw-retained full-arch reconstructions was 96.71% (95% CI: 93.66% to 98.31). All-ceramic reconstruction material exhibited a significantly higher failure rate than porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) in cemented reconstructions (P = .01) but not when comparing screw-retained reconstructions (P = .66). Technical and biologic complications demonstrating a statistically significant difference included loss of retention (P ≤ .01), abutment loosening (P ≤ .01), porcelain fracture and/or chipping (P = .02), presence of fistula/suppuration (P ≤ .001), total technical events (P = .03), and total biologic events (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS Although no statistical difference was found between cement- and screw-retained reconstructions for survival or failure rates, screw-retained reconstructions exhibited fewer technical and biologic complications overall. There were no statistically significant differences between the failure rates of the different reconstruction types (I-SCs, I-FDPs, full-arch I-FDPs) or abutment materials (titanium, gold, ceramic). The failure rate of cemented reconstructions was not influenced by the choice of a specific cement, though cement type did influence loss of retention.

Publication of statistically significant research findings in prosthodontics & implant dentistry in the context of other dental specialties

OBJECTIVES To assess the hypothesis that there is excessive reporting of statistically significant studies published in prosthodontic and implantology journals, which could indicate selective publication. METHODS The last 30 issues of 9 journals in prosthodontics and implant dentistry were hand-searched for articles with statistical analyses. The percentages of significant and non-significant results were tabulated by parameter of interest. Univariable/multivariable logistic regression analyses were applied to identify possible predictors of reporting statistically significance findings. The results of this study were compared with similar studies in dentistry with random-effects meta-analyses. RESULTS From the 2323 included studies 71% of them reported statistically significant results, with the significant results ranging from 47% to 86%. Multivariable modeling identified that geographical area and involvement of statistician were predictors of statistically significant results. Compared to interventional studies, the odds that in vitro and observational studies would report statistically significant results was increased by 1.20 times (OR: 2.20, 95% CI: 1.66-2.92) and 0.35 times (OR: 1.35, 95% CI: 1.05-1.73), respectively. The probability of statistically significant results from randomized controlled trials was significantly lower compared to various study designs (difference: 30%, 95% CI: 11-49%). Likewise the probability of statistically significant results in prosthodontics and implant dentistry was lower compared to other dental specialties, but this result did not reach statistical significant (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS The majority of studies identified in the fields of prosthodontics and implant dentistry presented statistically significant results. The same trend existed in publications of other specialties in dentistry.

Digital vs. conventional implant prosthetic workflows: a cost/time analysis.

OBJECTIVES The aim of this prospective cohort trial was to perform a cost/time analysis for implant-supported single-unit reconstructions in the digital workflow compared to the conventional pathway. MATERIALS AND METHODS A total of 20 patients were included for rehabilitation with 2 × 20 implant crowns in a crossover study design and treated consecutively each with customized titanium abutments plus CAD/CAM-zirconia-suprastructures (test: digital) and with standardized titanium abutments plus PFM-crowns (control conventional). Starting with prosthetic treatment, analysis was estimated for clinical and laboratory work steps including measure of costs in Swiss Francs (CHF), productivity rates and cost minimization for first-line therapy. Statistical calculations were performed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS Both protocols worked successfully for all test and control reconstructions. Direct treatment costs were significantly lower for the digital workflow 1815.35 CHF compared to the conventional pathway 2119.65 CHF [P = 0.0004]. For subprocess evaluation, total laboratory costs were calculated as 941.95 CHF for the test group and 1245.65 CHF for the control group, respectively [P = 0.003]. The clinical dental productivity rate amounted to 29.64 CHF/min (digital) and 24.37 CHF/min (conventional) [P = 0.002]. Overall, cost minimization analysis exhibited an 18% cost reduction within the digital process. CONCLUSION The digital workflow was more efficient than the established conventional pathway for implant-supported crowns in this investigation.

In Vitro Implant Impression Accuracy Using a New Photopolymerizing SDR Splinting Material

PURPOSE The study aims to evaluate three-dimensionally (3D) the accuracy of implant impressions using a new resin splinting material, "Smart Dentin Replacement" (SDR). MATERIALS AND METHODS A titanium model of an edentulous mandible with six implant analogues was used as a master model and its dimensions measured with a coordinate measuring machine. Before the total 60 impressions were taken (open tray, screw-retained abutments, vinyl polysiloxane), they were divided in four groups: A (test): copings pick-up splinted with dental floss and fotopolymerizing SDR; B (test): see A, additionally sectioned and splinted again with SDR; C (control): copings pick-up splinted with dental floss and autopolymerizing Duralay® (Reliance Dental Mfg. Co., Alsip, IL, USA) acrylic resin; and D (control): see C, additionally sectioned and splinted again with Duralay. The impressions were measured directly with an optomechanical coordinate measuring machine and analyzed with a computer-aided design (CAD) geometric modeling software. The Wilcoxon matched-pair signed-rank test was used to compare groups. RESULTS While there was no difference (p = .430) between the mean 3D deviations of the test groups A (17.5 μm) and B (17.4 μm), they both showed statistically significant differences (p < .003) compared with both control groups (C 25.0 μm, D 19.1 μm). CONCLUSIONS Conventional impression techniques for edentulous jaws with multiple implants are highly accurate using the new fotopolymerizing splinting material SDR. Sectioning and rejoining of the SDR splinting had no impact on the impression accuracy.

CAD/CAM fabrication accuracy of long- vs. short-span implant-supported FDPs

OBJECTIVE To compare the precision of fit of long-span vs. short-span implant-supported screw-retained fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) made from computer-aided-design/computer-aided-manufactured (CAD/CAM) titanium and veneered with ceramic. The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in the vertical microgap between long-span and short-span FDPs. MATERIALS AND METHODS CAD/CAM titanium frameworks for an implant-supported maxillary FDP on implants with a flat platform were fabricated on one single master cast. Group A consisted of six 10-unit FDPs connected to six implants (FDI positions 15, 13, 11, 21, 23, 25) and group B of six 5-unit FDPs (three implants, FDI positions 21, 23, 25). The CAD/CAM system from Biodenta Swiss AG (Berneck, Switzerland) was used for digitizing (laser scanner) the master cast and anatomical CAD of each framework separately. The frameworks were milled (CAM) from a titanium grade V monobloc and veneered with porcelain. Median vertical distance between implant and FDP platforms from the non-tightened implants (one-screw test on implant 25) was calculated from mesial, buccal, and distal scanning electron microscope measurements. RESULTS All measurements showed values <40 μm. Total median vertical microgaps were 23 μm (range 2-38 μm) for group A and 7 μm (4-24 μm) for group B. The difference between the groups was statistically significant at implant 21 (P = 0.002; 97.5% CI -27.3 to -4.9) and insignificant at implant 23 (P = 0.093; -3.9 to 1.0). CONCLUSIONS CAD/CAM fabrication including laboratory scanning and porcelain firing was highly precise and reproducible for all long- and short-span FDPs. While all FDPs showed clinically acceptable values, the short-span FDPs were statistically more precise at the 5-unit span distance.

The Perceived Prognosis of Endodontic Treatment and Implant Therapy Among Dental Practitioners

Little data concerning the perceived success of implant therapy in comparison with endodontic treatment exists. While the criteria used to measure the outcome of each modality are not the same, it is not clear if this is appreciated by practicing dentists. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the perceived outcome of implant therapy in comparison to endodontic treatment. A 23 question Web-based survey was distributed to 648 dentists who matriculated from the University of Connecticut School Of Dental Medicine over the past 30 years. The response rate was 47%. Sixty-seven percent of respondents were general dentists. Forty-nine percent of respondents did not know different criteria exist in the literature and are used to evaluate implant and root canal treatment. Fifty-four percent of dentists felt the prognosis of implant therapy was the same as or better than endodontic treatment of teeth with vital pulps. Thirty percent of responders thought root canal treatment of teeth with necrotic pulp was superior to implants and only 16% thought retreatment was preferable. Treatment planning for implant placement vs. retreatment of a restorable tooth was 46% and 32%, respectively. A third of the respondents felt that the role of endodontics will decline in the future. Dentists’ primary source of information regarding implant therapy was continuing education; however, their primary source of information regarding endodontic treatment was their dental program. Dentists felt the prognosis of implant therapy was as good or superior to endodontic treatment of teeth with vital, necrotic or previously treated pulps.