Regulación de la implantología dental en México / Regulation of dental implantology in Mexico

Introducción: los implantes dentales se han convertido en uno de los tratamientos odontológicos con mayor demanda en todo el mundo, no sólo por el nivel máximo de funcionalidad y de estética, sino también debido a su estabilidad, osteointegración y facilidad en su rehabilitación. Es incierto si los implantes dentales se encuentran normados formalmente en México, lo que motiva a la revisión del estado actual. Objetivo: evidenciar el estado actual de la legislación de la práctica de la implantología dental en México a través de una revisión en la literatura. Material y métodos: revisión de las legislaciones existentes en México para la aplicación de implantes dentales y su contraparte en el mundo a través de la evaluación de normas expedidas en América y Europa. Resultados: se contabilizó un total de 17 escuelas de implantes dentales que cuentan con el reconocimiento de la Secretaría de Educación Pública, de las cuales tres son públicas y 14 privadas. Se presentó una discrepancia en los planes de estudio que va de 16 a 36 meses. Las escuelas no contaron con un aval normativo. Las normas internacionales para control de calidad y aplicación de la tecnología en implantes se ubicaron en Canadá, Estados Unidos, España, Reino Unido y Francia. Conclusiones: contar con un antecedente normativo establecido por los países de primer mundo y ausente en México permite evidenciar la necesidad de implementar una Norma Oficial Mexicana que regule la fabricación, distribución y almacenamiento de los implantes dentales en México. A la vez, la revisión sugiere que la Secretaría de Educación Pública norme los créditos mínimos necesarios en las instituciones educativas reconocidas para la formación de recursos humanos que ejercen la implantología dental (AU)

Introduction: dental implants have become one of the dental treatments with the highest demand in the world, not only because of the highest level of functionality and aesthetics, but also because of their stability, osseointegration and ease of rehabilitation. It is uncertain if dental implants are formally regulated in Mexico, which motivates the review of the current status. Objective: to demonstrate the current state of the legislation for the practice of dental implantology in Mexico through a review of the literature. Material and methods: review of the existing legislation in Mexico, for the application of dental implants and its counterpart in the world, through the evaluation of standards issued in America and Europe. Results: a total of 17 dental implant schools that have the recognition of the Ministry of Public Education were counted, of which 3 are public and 14 private. There was a discrepancy in the study plans that ranged from 16 to 36 months. Schools will not have regulatory backing. The international standards for quality control and application of technology in implants were located in Canada, the United States, Spain, the United Kingdom and France. Conclusions: having a normative antecedent established by the countries of the first world and absent in Mexico, allows to demonstrate the need for the implementation of an Official Mexican Standard, which regulates the manufacture, distribution and storage of dental implants in Mexico. At the same time, the review suggests that the Ministry of Public Education regulate the minimum necessary credits in recognized educational institutions, for the training of human resources that practice dental implantology (AU)

Osteogenic inducer sustained-release system promotes the adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation of osteoblasts on titanium surface.

OBJECTIVE: Biomaterial can be locally applied to promote the osseointegration of dental implants. This study aimed to fabricate an osteogenic inducer (OI) sustained-release system and to evaluate its effects on the adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation of osteoblasts on titanium surfaces. METHODS: First of all, different contents of OI solution were added to the poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) gel individually to investigate the best physical properties and drug-release rate. Moreover, osteoblasts were isolated from the calvaria of two-month-old New Zealand rabbits through sequential enzymatic digestion. Osteoblasts were seeded onto the surface of Ti disks (control group), Ti coated with PLGA gel (PLGA group), and Ti coated with the OI sustained-release system (PLGA+OI group). Cell adhesion was observed by scanning electron microscopy. Cell proliferation was analyzed by cell counting kit-8. Cell differentiation was tested by alizarin red staining, alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity and osteogenic-related gene expression. RESULTS: The OI sustained-release system contained 15% OI solution had appropriate physical properties and drug-release rate. The osteoblasts in the PLGA+OI group were in a typical spindle shape with a considerable number indicating the promotion of adhesion and proliferation. The expression of early and late stage osteoblast differentiation genes in the PLGA+OI group were significantly higher than that of the control group and PLGA group at each time point. The PLGA group showed accelerated adhesion and differentiation but reduced proliferation compared with the control. CONCLUSION: The OI sustained-release system promotes the adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation of osteoblasts on titanium surfaces. This system is a cost-effective osteoconductive biomaterial that might be promising for use in dental implantation.

Patient-Centered Risk Assessment in Implant Treatment Planning.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the current scientific evidence on estimating cumulative risk for biologic complications relating to dental implants and to develop a patient-centered risk assessment tool for establishing aggregate risk. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A review of the scientific literature on risk indicators relating to dental implants was completed with the goal of identifying and weighting individual risk indicators so aggregate biologic risk could be estimated. Three authors completed independent reviews of the literature, identifying 31 systematic reviews on risk indicators for biologic complications with dental implants, from which 24 potential risk indicators were considered. Due to inconclusive scientific data on risk indicators, a Delphi process was used to gather structured expert opinion to supplement findings from the literature. Eleven Delphi participants with expertise in prosthodontics or periodontics participated in two email exchanges and one face-to-face meeting to comment and debate on the initial identification and weighting of risk indicators, propose the addition or removal of risk indicators, and provide recommended clinical management for each risk indicator. RESULTS: After three rounds of debate, literature review, and additions and removals of various risk indicators, consensus (defined as 95% or more in agreement) was achieved on 20 risk indicators. The Delphi group concluded that the risk indicators of smoking, diabetes, antiresorptive agents, and cemented restorations should include subcategories to more accurately identify and represent patient-specific risk. Clinical recommendations based on individual and aggregate risk were established by consensus. CONCLUSION: The literature on risk indicators for biologic complications was conflicting and inconclusive. The Delphi method was used to identify and establish the weighting of individual risk indicators, resulting in a risk assessment tool for estimating aggregate risk.

Quality Assessment of Systematic Reviews on Oral Implants Placed Immediately into Fresh Extraction Sockets.

PURPOSE: During the last two decades, many clinical trials and systematic reviews (SRs) have evaluated the clinical outcomes of immediate implant placement and its effects on soft and hard tissue. Despite the increased popularity and knowledge of immediate implant placement, the evidence about its benefits is still not conclusive. The aim of this review was to assess the quality of published SRs with meta-analyses of immediate implant placement and provide an overview of the key findings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects were performed to include SRs with meta-analysis of immediate implant placement. Two independent reviewers assessed the methodologic quality of SRs using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Reviews (AMSTAR), the 2003 checklist of Glenny et al, and the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP). RESULTS: A total of 742 articles were found; 5 were included. All included SRs were published after 2007. Implant survival rate was the most commonly reported outcome. There was insufficient information in the primary studies, and hence in the SRs, about other outcomes and any adverse events. However, the methodologic quality of the SRs was considered to be high. CONCLUSION: There is a general consensus among the included SRs that it is still premature to draw definite conclusions about the potential benefits of immediate implant placement because of the limited number of well-designed controlled clinical trials. Improvements in future SRs are still required and can be achieved by following established quality criteria, namely researching the unpublished literature and literature not in English and by reporting the quality assessment of primary studies and any sources of bias.

Implementation of a laboratory quality assurance program: the Louisville experience.

Remakes, or the refabrication of dental prostheses, can occur as a result of inherent inaccuracies in both clinical and laboratory procedures. Because dental schools manage large numbers of predoctoral dental students with limited familiarity and expertise as related to clinical prosthodontic techniques, it is likely these schools will experience an elevated incidence of laboratory remakes and their ramifications. The University of Louisville School of Dentistry, not unlike other dental schools, has experienced remakes associated with both fixed and removable prosthodontic procedures. Limitations in faculty standardization and variable enforcement of established preclinical protocols have been identified as variables associated with the high percentage of remakes documented. The purpose of this study was to introduce the implementation of a new multidepartmental quality assurance program designed to increase consistency and quality in both information provided to commercial dental laboratories and the prostheses returned. The program has shown to be advantageous in terms of cost-effectiveness and treatment outcomes. A statistically significant decrease in remake percentages has been recorded from inception of this program in December 2010 until December 2012. Furthermore, this program has resulted in more consistent communication between the dental school and commercial dental laboratories, among faculty members, and between faculty and students.

Reliability of 2 implant stability measuring methods in assessment of various periimplant bone loss: an in vitro study with the Periotest and Osstell Mentor.

PURPOSE: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate reliability of the Periotest and Osstell Mentor in assessment of periimplant vertical and circular bone loss. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen dental implants were embedded into acrylic resin blocks. The portion of resin around the implant neck was successively removed to mimic periimplant vertical and circular bone loss. Measurement values of 2 devices were compared by assessing the change of Periotest value (PTV) and Implant Stability Quotient (ISQ) values, by calculating correlation analysis and by means of regression analysis referring to increasing bone loss. RESULTS: Both devices were able to discriminate differences of circular bone loss. However, PTVs were not noticeably changed in buccal, buccal-mesial, and buccal-mesial-distal bone loss. The differences in buccal and buccal-mesial bone loss were not discriminated by Osstell Mentor. As the range of bone loss was increased, there was a noticeable correlation of the PTV and ISQ values. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that both diagnostic devices for implant stability are useful in detecting the circular bone loss. However, the clinical reliability of both devices for detecting the partial vertical bone loss is low.

Implant assessment.

UNLABELLED: Meticulous planning in implant dentistry is essential in order to achieve a predictable and successful outcome for both the operator and the patient. This paper summarizes the important aspects of planning, including factors related to clinical and radiographic examination and the use of study models. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This paper has relevance to practitioners carrying out implant treatment and also to colleagues who are likely to refer patients for implants.

Health technology assessment in oral health.

Health-care costs are rising at an alarmingly fast rate worldwide, particularly in developed countries such as the United States. This is predominantly a result of the development of new, high-cost health technologies intended for improved diagnosis and treatment. The purpose of health technology assessment is to systematically determine the true benefits of new technologies, taking into account clinical efficacy/effectiveness and cost as well as societal preference and ethical issues. In this report, the purpose of health technology assessment is explained in light of new developments in oral health technology, particularly intraoral implants. This information is intended to educate and to challenge oral health opinion leaders to consider all of the issues involved in the development and diffusion of new oral health technologies.

Risk management in clinical practice. Part 9. Dental implants.

Patients have high expectations of dental implants in terms of appearance, function and longevity. It is essential that these expectations are realistically managed and that treatment of the highest standard is provided. This involves very careful evaluation, including clinical and radiographic, and presentation of the pros and cons of treatment alternatives. Provision of a successful implant restoration requires many skills including a surgical procedure to place the implant in the best possible position and prosthodontic techniques to provide an aesthetic restoration in occlusal harmony with the rest of the dentition. Recognition of risk factors and long-term maintenance requirements are equally important. Clinicians involved in these treatments must obtain adequate training and develop skills through treatment of straightforward cases using well established protocols before embarking on more demanding cases.

Are patients referred for NHS-funded dental implant treatment being selected in accordance with national guidelines and subsequently funded by their primary care trust?

INTRODUCTION: The Faculty of Dental Surgery, The Royal College of Surgeons of England (RCSE), published a national guideline document in 1997 detailing specific selection criteria for National Health Service (NHS) funded dental implant treatment. The aim of this audit was to assess whether patients selected for NHS-funded dental implants at Bristol Dental Hospital (BDH) met the RCSE national criteria for treatment and received funding from their primary care trust (PCT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective audit over a period of 2 years was undertaken using medical records and an existing Microsoft Excel database. All patients who had an application submitted to their local PCT for NHS-funded dental implants by BDH were included in this audit. RESULTS: A total of 82 applications for dental implant funding were made by BDH and 100% met the RCSE criteria. Fifty-one patients (62.2%) in total had their application for funding approved. Thirty-one patients (37.8%) that met the RCSE guidelines for NHS-funded dental implant treatment had their applications refused. Twenty-five (49%) out of 51 cases in the partially dentate category and six (27.3%) cases in the edentulous group were unsuccessful in their application for NHS-funded dental implants. However, all applications for patients with acquired maxillofacial defects were successful. CONCLUSIONS: Patient selection by the BDH for NHS-funded implants complied with the RCSE guidelines. However, there was significant variation in funding between PCTs for those patients who apparently fulfilled the RCSE guidelines. NHS resources are not being allocated equitably for dental implant 'high-priority' patients and it would appear that a so-called 'postcode lottery' exists between PCTs.

Clinical decisions and the quality of evidence available for dental implants.

As more types of implants have become available, clinicians have been faced with the task of choosing a specific implant from a wide array of options for a given clinical situation, which has led to an ever-increasing need for clinical evidence to help clinicians choose an implant. This article highlights the need for clinicians to look beyond the claims proposed by manufacturers because several of those claims are not substantiated by randomized controlled trials but by in vitro data alone. Recent advances in clinical evidence-based decision portals might enable busy clinicians to adopt an evidence-based approach to choosing implant systems. Also, the standardization of study-reporting criteria might enable comparisons across implant systems in the future.

Reliability and validity of the instrumental assessment of implant stability in dry human mandibles.

The aim of this study was to determine the intra- and interobserver reliability and validity of the instrumental assessment of primary dental implant stability, using resonance frequency analysis (RFA). Sixteen tapered implants and 16 cylindrical implants were installed in eight unfixed dry human mandibles (Cawood classification IV/V). Implant stability quotients (ISQ; the outcome variable of RFA) and peak removal torque were determined. Both the intra-observer reliability and the interobserver reliability of the RFA measurements were fair-to-good, while no significant correlations between the ISQ values and removal torque were found. The removal torque of the cylindrical implants was higher than that of the tapered implants. The smallest detectable difference was almost nine ISQ units. Within the limitations of the present dry cadaver study, it was concluded that (i) primary dental implant stability can be assessed reliably with RFA measurements, (ii) the concurrent validity between RFA measurements and removal torque is poor, (iii) cylindrical implants may be more stable than tapered ones and (iv) two subsequent readings of RFA measurements need to differ at least nine ISQ units before the difference between the two measurements can be considered statistically significant. More research is needed to see whether these conclusions can be extrapolated to the clinical situation, including the assessment of implants during function (secondary stability).

Valoración e importancia de la falta de axialidad en implantes oseointegrados / Assessment and importance of the lack of axial position in osseointegrated implants

El objetivo de este estudio "in vitro" es valorizar la resistencia que deberá ejercer el tejido óseo ante las fuerzas que producen los implantes que no pueden ser colocados en forma axial al plano de oclusión

The implant quality scale: a clinical assessment of the health--disease continuum.

Implant success is as difficult to describe as the success criteria required for a tooth. A range from health to disease exists in both conditions. The primary criteria for assessing implant quality are pain and mobility. The presence of either one greatly compromises the implant, and removal is usually indicated. Probing depths may be related to the presence of local disease or pre-existing tissue thickness before the implant was inserted. An increasing probing depth is more diagnostic and signifies bone loss, gingival hyperplasia or hypertrophy. Bone loss is usually evaluated best with probing rather than with radiographs. The most common cause of bone loss during the first few years of function are exaggerated factors of stress. The bleeding index is easily observed and indicates inflammation of the gingiva. However, implant health status is not as related to sulcular inflammation as would be the case for a natural tooth. Implant failure is easier to describe and may consist of a variety of factors. Any pain, vertical mobility, uncontrolled progressive bone loss, and/or generalized periradiolucency warrant implant removal. Implant quality factors were established by James and modified by Misch into an implant quality scale which not only assesses the implant health-disease continuum, but relates treatment and prognosis to the existing conditions.