Search

The aims of this study were to assess 1) differences in perceptions of dental implant training between dental students who received didactic training alone (control group) and those who received didactic plus simulation training (test group); 2) differences in response between students with and without clinical experience in implant dentistry; and 3) the interaction effect of simulation training and clinical experience on students' satisfaction. A survey was distributed to the control group in 2014 and to the test group in 2015; both groups were at the same U.S. dental school. Data were collected on confidence levels with various implant restorative procedures along with overall satisfaction and number of implant restorations performed by each student. The response rate was 78.7% in the control group and 81.3% in the test group. In the control group, 85.7% of students reported being satisfied with implant training compared to 90.8% of students in the test group. The interaction effect of simulation training and clinical experience on overall student satisfaction was OR=1.5 at 95% CI: 0.8, 3.0. The students who had clinical experience with implant restorative procedures had significantly greater satisfaction than those who did not (OR=4.8, 95% CI: 2.1, 11.1, p

Dental implant education has increasingly become an integral part of predoctoral dental curricula. However, the majority of implant education emphasizes the restorative aspect as opposed to the surgical. The University of Illinois at Chicago College of Dentistry has developed an Advanced Predoctoral Implant Program (APIP) that provides a select group of students the opportunity to place implants for single-tooth restorations and mandibular overdentures. This article describes the rationale, logistics, experiences, and perspectives of an innovative approach to provide additional learning experiences in the care of patients with partial and complete edentulism using implant-supported therapies. Student and faculty perspectives on the APIP were ascertained via focus group discussions and a student survey. The qualitative analysis of this study suggests that the select predoctoral dental students highly benefited from this experience and intend to increase their knowledge and skills in implant dentistry through formal education following graduation. Furthermore, the survey indicates that the APIP has had a positive influence on the students’ interest in surgically placing implants in their future dental practice and their confidence level in restoring and surgically placing implants.

The objective of this study was to assess the ability of the University of Illinois at Chicago College of Dentistry (UIC-COD) predoctoral students to provide single tooth implant (STI) prostheses in the maxillary esthetic zone. The patient's esthetic satisfaction and the correlation between prosthodontists' and patients' perspectives were examined. Twenty-seven patients were recruited for recall examinations at the UIC-COD predoctoral implant program and underwent clinical and radiographic examination with clinical photographs of the implant sites. The patients completed a semantic differential scale questionnaire. The collected information was formulated into a PowerPoint presentation for two Diplomate of the American Board of Prosthodontists to use the Pink/White Esthetic Score (PES/WES) to evaluate the esthetic outcome. Descriptive analyses, Cohen kappa test, and Spearman rank correlation coefficient test were performed. The average PES/WES were above 6.0 (out of 10). The median for the patient satisfaction and esthetic outcome questionnaires were 10 and 9, respectively, on a scale with 10=highest. There was a medium and positive correlation between prosthodontists' and patients' perspectives in esthetic outcome. This study found that, with strict guidance and proper selection criteria, predoctoral students were able to provide esthetically acceptable STI prostheses in the maxillary esthetic zone and patients were satisfied with the treatment provided.

The aim of this study was to investigate the extent and forms of predoctoral implant dentistry instruction in North American dental schools and to identify future directions and challenges. The survey collected data on curriculum content, departmental oversight, techniques, and materials, as well as current problems to be solved. The 30-question survey was sent in 2012 to the dean or administrator in charge of the predoctoral curriculum of all 73 dental schools in the U.S. and Canada at the time; four reminders were sent. Forty-seven schools responded, for a response rate of 64%. Of the 47 responding schools, 46 (98%) offered didactic instruction (mean of 17 hours); 87% had a laboratory component (mean of 14.46 hours); and 57% had a clinical requirement. In the responding schools, students had an average of 1.85 implant restorative cases and 0.61 surgical cases. Forty-two of the schools (89%) had implemented observation of implant surgery and/or assisting with implant surgery in their curricula. Major challenges reported in implementing a comprehensive predoctoral implant curriculum included expense of implant systems to the schools and to patients, shortage of predoctoral cases, and lack of curriculum time and trained faculty. These results show that implant education for predoctoral dental students continues to expand, with a trend towards more preclinical exercises and clinical experiences and fewer didactic courses.

A variety of computer-based 3D applications are becoming regular tools for dental students for self-learning. This study investigated the learning effectiveness of junior dental students in passively versus actively controlling the 3D virtual scenes of implant dentistry. Participants were randomized into three groups and were exposed to three designs of educational materials: traditional 2D webpages (2D); active-controlling 3D webpages (A3); and passive-controlling 3D webpages (P3). After reviewing the webpages, the participants were asked to complete a posttest to assess the relative quality of information acquisition. Their responses were compared and analyzed. The results indicated that the P3 group received the highest score of 26.4±3.1 on the post-test, significantly better than the A3 group, which had the worst performance with a score of 20.3±4.0. The 2D group received a score of 24.2±4.6. There was a significant correlation between the scores on a mental rotations test and the subjects' performance on the posttest (p0.001). A serious disadvantage of active control was indicated for individuals with low spatial ability. In 3D virtual reality assisted self-learning, passive control produces higher learning effects compared to active control. Too much active control may generate significantly negative impacts on students, especially for individuals with low spatial ability.

Implant treatment today is highly reliable as a valid restorative option for missing teeth. As more patients worldwide opt for implant treatment, it is now imperative for dental practitioners to have sound information about dental implants so they can help patients make informed decisions. This study sought to define the knowledge and attitudes regarding dental implants of dental interns in the state of Karnataka, India, and to evaluate the dental implant curriculum structure at the undergraduate level. A survey was conducted of dental interns (students in their fifth, clinical year of undergraduate study) in seven of the forty-five academic dental institutions in this state. The questionnaire consisted of fifteen questions that assessed the respondents' level of knowledge and source of information regarding implants. A total of 500 questionnaires were distributed, and 417 interns responded for a response rate of 83.4 percent. In the results, 73.3 percent reported they were not provided sufficient information about implants in their undergraduate curriculum, and 95.7 percent of them wanted more. Also, 63.5 percent of the respondents believed that high costs could limit the use of dental implants as a tooth replacement modality in India. This study concludes that revision in the undergraduate dental curricula at these schools is needed to better prepare students for practicing implant dentistry.

In 2013, the Commission on Dental Accreditation (CODA) mandated a competency in oral health care specifying that “replacement of teeth” options should include dental implant therapies with fixed or removable prostheses. The trend toward incorporating implant therapy in the predoctoral dental

In 2004, a survey of the deans of U.S. and Canadian dental schools was conducted to determine the implant dentistry curriculum structure and the extent of incorporating implant dentistry clinical treatment into predoctoral programs. The questionnaire was mailed to the deans of the fifty-six dental schools in advance of the ADEA Implant Workshop conference held in Arizona in November 2004. Out of the fifty-six, thirty-nine responded, yielding a response rate of 70 percent. Thirty-eight schools (97 percent) reported that their students received didactic instruction in dental implants, while one school (3 percent) said that its students did not. Thirty schools (86 percent) reported that their students received clinical experience, while five schools (14 percent) reported that theirs did not. Four schools (10 percent) did not respond to this question. Fifty-one percent of the students actually receive the clinical experience in restoring implants, with the range of 5-100 percent. Of those schools that provide clinical experience in restoring implants, four schools (13 percent) reported that it is a requirement for them, while twenty-eight schools (88 percent) reported that it is not a requirement for them. Three schools (9 percent) did not respond. The fee for implants is 45 percent higher than a crown or a denture, with a range of 0-100 percent. Twenty-nine schools (85 percent) indicated that they did receive free components from implant companies, while five schools (15 percent) did not. The conclusions of this report are as follows: 1) most schools have advanced dental education programs; 2) single-tooth implant restorations are performed at the predoctoral level in most schools; 3) implant-retained overdenture prostheses are performed at the predoctoral level in most schools; 4) there is no predoctoral clinical competency requirement for surgical implant placement in all schools that responded to the survey; 5) there is no predoctoral clinical competency requirement for implant prosthodontics in most schools that responded to the survey; 6) prosthodontic specialty faculty are often responsible for teaching implant prosthodontics at the predoctoral level; 7) periodontics and oral and maxillofacial faculty are commonly responsible for teaching implant surgery at the predoctoral level; 8) support from implant companies is common for dental schools, with most providing for implant components at discounted costs; and 9) there is a lack of adequately trained faculty in implant dentistry, which is a significant challenge in providing predoctoral students with clinical experience with dental implants.

The goal of preserving the natural dentition has long provided the foundation for clinical decision making in dentistry. Current trends in implant dentistry have weakened this paradigm as many practitioners have moved quickly to adopt implant dentistry as a new standard of care; however, the rapidity of this shift is a cause for concern among others. Many short-term studies have reported favorable data supporting the growth of single-unit implant dentistry, but the lack of standardized outcome evaluations and broadly conceived dimensions of performance makes it difficult to compare these reports. Thus, even with the exciting new treatment options implant dentistry offers patients and practitioners, all due consideration should first be given to treatments aimed at preserving and restoring compromised teeth before pursuing extraction and replacement. This article examines this premise from five perspectives: form, function, survival, management of complications, and quality of life.

Hundreds of thousands of implantations are performed each year in dental clinical practice. Dental implants are a small fraction of the total number of synthetic materials implanted into the human body in all fields of medicine. Basically, these millions of implants going into humans function adequately. But longevity and complications still are significant issues and provide opportunities for the creation of improved devices. This manuscript briefly reviews the history of dental implant devices and the concepts surrounding the word "biocompatibility." It then contrasts the foreign body reaction with normal healing. Finally, the article describes how ideas gleaned from the study of normal wound healing can be applied to improved dental implants. In a concluding section, three scenarios for dental implants twenty years from now are envisioned.

Standardized prospective clinical trials are uncommon in implant dentistry. Aside from the Branemark and staple trials; both restricted to edentulous jaws, and two blade trials in their early and as yet inconclusive stages, most implant studies are retrospective. As such, they lack uniformity in patient selection, methodology, evaluation, and definitions of success and do not yield the information needed for critical clinical decisions. There are data to compare treatments for edentulous jaws, but virtually none for the partially edentulous patient. Decisions, out of necessity, involve retrospection and interpolation. In the absence of a definitive data base, added attention must be paid to patient safety and informed consent. Patient selection, implant selection, site selection, and surgical and prosthetic management--all of which influence implant efficacy and safety--are highlighted. It is the opinion of this author, based upon the benefit/risk information reviewed, that osseointegrated root forms are the implants of choice when adequate bone is available, and that blade implants and subperiosteal implants are indicated when bone space is restricted. Prospective clinical trials must be given the highest priority in planning for implant research.

Comparison of data from independent clinical trials conducted on both the Oratronics standard blade implant and the Nobelpharma fixture device provides evidence that the fibro-osteal and osteal modes of tissue integration are both effective, and lead to comparable implant success/survival rates. Advantages, disadvantages, and areas of preferred use and overlap for each implant system are discussed. Data from the VA Cooperative Study, comparing the efficacy of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) supported by a blade implant to removable partial dentures (RPDs), and from the NIDR/Harvard Study, comparing the efficacy of FPDs supported by a blade implant to cantilevered FPDs, indicate that the success/survival rates of FPDs supported by blade implant are equivalent to or better than those for conventional treatment modalities. Data presented in this paper establish the safety and efficacy of use of fibro-osteal integrated blade devices in implant dentistry.