[Changes in the "classical" factors influencing dental implant-osseointegration in recent decades]. / A fogászati implantátumok csontbeépülését befolyásoló "klasszikus" tényezok változásai az elmúlt évtizedekben.

Nowadays, it is almost naturally taken among dentists that seemed unimaginable a few decades ago, namely that an inorganic material (titanium) inserted in an organic environment (bone) can be integrated and become a permanent pillar of prosthetics. Bone integration - meaning a structural and functional connection between the implant and the bone - itself was discovered and described in the late 1960s. This provides the basis of dental implantology. In those days, the conditions affecting the positive or negative course of bone integration have been formulated. This process is investigated at the level of basic research and rarely mentioned in the daily clinical practice. The material, form, and surface of the implant all contribute to success if we design well and apply the correct surgical technique. Our goal is to present the changes that have taken place over the past decades, which have resulted in an increasingly perfect integration and clinical success of implants. Orv Hetil. 2019; 160(37): 1455-1463.

Guidelines for development of Implant Dentistry in the next 10 years regarding innovation, education, certification, and associations.

BACKGROUND: During the third Summer Camp of European Association of Osseointegration (EAO), 40 junior representatives from various European societies and associations were brought together to discuss and explore the following topics in Implant Dentistry in the next 10 years: (I) certification, (II) societies and associations, (III) continuing education, and (IV) innovations. AIMS: The aims of all working groups were to identify and outline the present situation in the area of the selected topic and to propose improvements and innovations to be implemented in the following 10 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four different groups were assigned randomly to one of the four working units. The method to discuss the selected topics was World Cafè. The summaries of four topics were then given to all participants for peer review. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: All four groups presented the conclusions and guidelines accordingly: (I) The recognition for Implant Dentistry and accreditation of training programs would lead to an improvement of the quality of care to the benefit of the patients; (II) Dental associations and societies have to continuously improve communication to meet needs of dental students, professionals, and patients (III) European Dental Board should be installed and become responsible for continue dental education; (IV) dental engineering, peri-implant diseases, and digital workflow in dentistry currently have limited tools that do not guarantee predictable results.

Trends in Dental Implant Use in the U.S., 1999-2016, and Projections to 2026.

Dental implants have become an increasingly popular treatment choice for replacing missing teeth. Yet, little is known about the prevalence and sociodemographic distribution of dental implant use in the United States. To address this knowledge gap, we analyzed data from 7 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys from 1999 to 2016. We estimated dental implant prevalence among adults missing any teeth for each survey period overall as stratified by sociodemographic characteristics. We calculated absolute and relative differences from 1999-2000 to 2015-2016 and fit logistic regression models to estimate changes over time. We also used multivariable logistic regression to estimate independent associations of sociodemographic covariates with the presence of any implant. We projected the proportion of patients treated with dental implants into the year 2026 under varying assumptions of how the temporal trend would continue. There has been a large increase in the prevalence of dental implants, from 0.7% in 1999 to 2000 to 5.7% in 2015 to 2016. The largest absolute increase in prevalence (12.9%) was among individuals 65 to 74 y old, whereas the largest relative increase was ~1,000% among those 55 to 64 y old. There was an average covariate-adjusted increase in dental implant prevalence of 14% per year (95% CI, 11% to 18%). Having private insurance (vs. none or public insurance) or more than a high school education (vs. high school or less) was each associated with a 2-fold increase in prevalence, with an almost 13-fold (95% CI, 8 to21) increase for older adults. Dental implant prevalence projected to 2026 ranged from 5.7% in the most conservative scenario to 23% in the least. This study demonstrates that dental implant prevalence among US adults with missing teeth has substantially increased since 1999. Yet access overall is still very low, and prevalence was consistently higher among more advantaged groups.

On Implant Prosthodontics: One Narrative, Twelve Voices - 1.

No abstract available.

On Implant Prosthodontics: One Narrative, Twelve Voices - 2.

No abstract available.

On Implant Prosthodontics: One Narrative, Twelve Voices - 3.

No abstract available.

On Implant Prosthodontics: One Narrative, Twelve Voices - 4.

No abstract available.

On Implant Prosthodontics: One Narrative, Twelve Voices - 5.

No abstract available.

On Implant Prosthodontics: One Narrative, Twelve Voices - 6.

No abstract available.

On Implant Prosthodontics: One Narrative, Twelve Voices - 7.

No abstract available.

On Implant Prosthodontics: One Narrative, Twelve Voices - 8.

No abstract available.

On Implant Prosthodontics: One Narrative, Twelve Voices - 9.

No abstract available.

On Implant Prosthodontics: One Narrative, Twelve Voices - 10.

No abstract available.

On Implant Prosthodontics: One Narrative, Twelve Voices - 11.

No abstract available.

On Implant Prosthodontics: One Narrative, Twelve Voices - 12.

No abstract available.

Surface characteristics of dental implants: A review.

OBJECTIVES: During the last decades, several changes of paradigm have modified our view on how biomaterials' surface characteristics influence the bioresponse. After becoming aware of the role of a certain microroughness for improved cellular contact and osseointegration of dental titanium implants, the likewise important role of surface energy and wettability was increasingly strengthened. Very recently, synergistic effects of nanoscaled topographical features and hydrophilicity at the implant/bone interface have been reported. METHODS: Questions arise about which surface roughness and wetting data are capable to predict the bioresponse and, ultimately, the clinical performance. Current methods and approaches applied for topographical, wetting and surface energetic analyses are highlighted. Current knowledge of possible mechanisms explaining the influence of roughness and hydrophilicity at the biological interface is presented. RESULTS: Most marketed and experimental surfaces are based on commonly available additive or subtractive surface modifying methods such as blasting, etching or anodizing. Different height, spatial, hybrid and functional roughness parameters have been identified as possible candidates able to predict the outcome at hard and soft tissue interfaces. Likewise, hydrophilic implants have been proven to improve the initial blood contact, to support the wound healing and thereby accelerating the osseointegration. SIGNIFICANCE: There is clear relevance for the influence of topographical and wetting characteristics on a macromolecular and cellular level at endosseous implant/biosystem interfaces. However, we are still far away from designing sophisticated implant surfaces with the best possible, selective functionality for each specific tissue or cavity interface. Firstly, because our knowledge of the respective surface related reactions is at best fragmentary. Secondly, because manufacturing of multi-scaled complex surfaces including distinct nanotopographies, wetting properties, and stable cleanliness is still a technical challenge and far away from being reproducibly transferred to implant surfaces.

Implant dentistry in Australia: the present and future. A survey of Australian dentists and specialists.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, implant dentistry has become a routine part of many general dental practices in Australia. However, there has been little information regarding its extent and scope. This investigation aimed to address this issue by surveying Australian general dental practitioners (GDP) and relevant specialists regarding their practice of implant dentistry. METHODS: Anonymous electronic surveys were designed online using SurveyMonkey™ and delivered to the following professional bodies: all seven state/territory branches of the Australian Dental Association, the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Periodontists, the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, and prosthodontist members of the Australian Prosthodontic Society. The surveys were completed online via SurveyMonkey in 2014. RESULTS: The response rates were 7.61% (N = 801) for GDP, 41.76% (N = 38) for prosthodontists, 34.16% (N = 55) for periodontists and 34.07% (N = 46) for oral and maxillofacial (OMF) surgeons. Among the respondents, 66.37% (N = 521) of GDP, 86.11% (N = 31) of prosthodontists, 82.98% (N = 39) of periodontists and 97.67% (N = 42) of OMF surgeons indicated that they currently practise implant dentistry. A strong perceived need for further education in this field was also expressed by the respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Implant dentistry presently appears to be practised by a significant proportion of GDP across Australia. This is likely to continue to grow in the future.

[Research progress in titanium dental implant biological modification].

During the past three decades, the technology of implant surface modification has already formed well-developed methods including physical and chemical means. However, titanium is a kind of bioinert material, which will directly result in slowly bone-bond with bone tissue after implantation and ultimately reduce the success rate of dental implant surgery. Therefore, the introduction of bioactive substances which can effectively regulate and promote the proliferation of bone cells to modify the titanium implant surface has received tremendous attention in the research of oral implant field. The research of biological modification starts relatively late and it has not formed well-established system yet. The research progress is given in this paper concerning the bioactivators and methods used in biological modification. Furthermore, the current situation as well as the recent developments involving the biological modification of dental implant are also discussed in this review.

Modern implant dentistry based on osseointegration: 50 years of progress, current trends and open questions.

In the 1960s and 1970s, implant-supported prostheses based on subperiosteal or blade implants had a poor reputation because of questionable clinical outcomes and lack of scientific documentation. The change to a scientifically sound discipline was initiated by the two scientific pioneers of modern implant dentistry, Professor P. I. Brånemark from the University of Gothenburg in Sweden and Professor André Schroeder from the University of Bern in Switzerland. Together with their teams, and independently of each other, they laid the foundation for the most significant development and paradigm shift in dental medicine. The present volume of Periodontology 2000 celebrates 50 years of osseointegration. It reviews the progress of implant therapy over the past 50 years, including the basics of implant surgery required to achieve osseointegration on a predictable basis and evolving innovations. The development of bone-augmentation techniques, such as guided bone regeneration and sinus floor elevation, to correct local bone defects at potential implant sites has increased the indications for implant therapy. The paradigm shift to moderately rough implant surfaces resulted in faster and enhanced bone integration and led to improvements in various treatment protocols, such as immediate and early implant placement in postextraction sites, and made various loading protocols possible, including immediate and early implant loading. In the past 15 years, preoperative analysis and presurgical planning improved as a result of the introduction of three-dimensional imaging techniques. Hereby, cone-beam computed tomography offers better image quality with reduced radiation exposure, when compared with dental computed tomography. This opened the door for digital planning and surgical modifications. Over the last 50 years this evolution has facilitated tremendous progress in esthetic outcomes with implant-supported prostheses and improved patient-centered outcomes. This volume of Periodontology 2000 also discusses the current trends and open questions of implant dentistry, such as the potential of digital implant dentistry in the surgical and prosthetic field, the trend for an increasing average age of implant patients and the related adaptations of treatment protocols, and the second attempt to establish ceramic implants using, this time, zirconia as the implant material. Finally, some of the hottest controversies are discussed, such as recent suggestions on bone integration being a potential foreign-body reaction and the evidence-based appraisal of the peri-implantitis debate.