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.

Dental Implants: The Last 100 Years.

The present article on the history of dental implants spans beyond the past 100 years of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. It was not until the materials and methods became less traumatic to the bone that implants could become firmly attached to the surrounding bone. This phenomenon is now used to replace single and multiple teeth and restore the patient to function and well-being. Many of the methods used to increase denture function are still used with modifications to augment the environment for an implant. These technological changes have allowed patients to be treated efficiently, with the same need for a good treatment plan and physical evaluation by the clinician.

Implantes cortos como alternativa terapéutica actual en el tratamiento de maxilares atróficos / Short implants as current therapeutic alternatives to the treatment of athrophic jaws

La variación en el volumen óseo producida tras la pérdida dental, hace que el tratamiento de los pacientesque presentan atrofias avanzadas en los maxilares sea un desafío para todo cirujano. En la actualidad, el uso de implantes dentales para reemplazar piezas dentarias perdidas es una opción de tratamiento. El tratamiento con implantes cortos se comporta tanpredecible como el uso de implantes convencionales, pero estos resultados siguen siendo objeto de controversia. Los implantes cortos tienen tasas de éxito similares a las de los implantes de longitud estándar, pueden ser utilizados como alternativa en el tratamiento de maxilares atróficos, siempre que sean manejadosbajo una cuidadosa planificación de tratamiento. El objetivo del presente trabajo es exponer una revisiónde la literatura actual sobre el uso de implantes cortos como alternativa de tratamiento terapéutico en presencia de maxilares atróficos.

The variation in the bone volume produced afterdental loss makes the treatment of patientswith advanced atrophies in the jaws a challengefor every surgeon. At present, the use of dental implants to replace lost teeth is a treatment option.Treatment with short implants behaves aspredictably as the use of conventional implants,but these results remain controversial. Short implants have similar success rates to thoseof standard length implants and can be usedas an alternative in the treatment of atrophic jaws, provided they are handled under careful treatment planning.The aim of the present study is to presenta review of the current literature on the use of short implants as an alternative therapeutic treatment in the presence of atrophic jaws.

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.

Fifty Years of Dental Implant Development: a Continuous Evolution.

Since their conception in the 1960s, dental implants have evolved into a predictable solution for replacing missing teeth. Many of these advances have come from an improved understanding of osseointegration and material sciences, most notably recognising the inherent biocompatibility of titanium. This has allowed researchers and clinicians to focus upon achieving better functional and aesthetic outcomes. This paper describes the evolution from the original concepts to current practice in dental implantology and considers some of the challenges to success facing clinicians and patients today.

Lower jaw reconstruction and dental rehabilitation after war injuries: The experience of Paul Tessier in Iran in the late 1980s.

Iraq-Iran war resulted in more than 400,000 people requiring prolonged medical care in Iran. An international team of prominent reconstructive surgeons led by Paul Tessier, the founder of craniofacial surgery, was invited to Iran during the war by official organizations entitled to support war victims. This team provided up-to-date oral and maxillofacial rehabilitation to patients with severe trauma defects in the lower third of the face. We collected the medical notes of 43 patients operated on by the Tessier team in Iran in the 1980s (files property of AFCF). The parameters we collected were: age of the patient, nature of the trauma (when available), previous procedures, number of implants placed (mandibular and maxillary), associated procedures (bone grafts, soft-tissue procedures, orthognathic surgery). A protocol based on soft-tissue rehabilitation using local flaps, parietal or iliac bone grafts and implant placement 6 months later was used in all patients. Paul Tessier's approach emphasizes the importance of keeping high standards of care in difficult situations and maintaining standard protocols.

The development of guided regeneration: making the impossible possible and the unpredictable predictable.

Using their perspectives as early participants in guided regeneration development, the authors review the history of guided regeneration: from the precursive studies leading to the development of guided tissue regeneration for periodontium, through the development of guided bone regeneration for implants, to the long-term performance studies validating effectiveness. Landmark publications, original patents, and reviews are used to trace the therapy's development. By examining key studies and the scientists and clinicians who conducted them, the authors present clinical and biomaterials lessons learned and discuss developments that could shape the next guided regeneration developments.

Orthodontics in 3 millennia. Chapter 15: Skeletal anchorage.

For many years, orthodontists have searched for a form of anchorage that does not rely on patient cooperation, although the answer already lay in the implants dentists used to replace missing teeth and oral surgeons used to hold bone segments together. Now these divergent lines have come together in the form of stationary anchorage, and titanium is the most biocompatible material. State-of-the-art miniscrews and microscrews--temporary anchorage devices--now permit movements hitherto thought difficult or impossible. This article continues the series last published in April 2007.

The impact of oral implants - past and future, 1966-2042.

This paper traces the history of oral implants, beginning with their early undocumented use in the mid-1960s. Although early experimentation with the Brånemark system of osseointegration was unsuccessful, significant improvements and scrupulous documentation of the 1970s led to their general acceptance. George Zarb spearheaded their introduction into North America and application of the osseointegration technique soon expanded to extraoral craniofacial prostheses and bone-anchored hearing aids.New possibilities, such as altered surface properties and the use of implants in grafted and irradiated bone are currently being explored, although commercial pressure to introduce new products before they are adequately tested is a cause for concern. The future will see bioactive surfaces and additives that stimulate bone growth. In fact, with the possibility of in vivo growth of new teeth, implants may become unnecessary.