Prosthodontists in Private Practice: Current and Future Conditions of Practice in the United States (Part I)

Indirect restorative systems-A narrative review

OBJECTIVE

The background and clinical understanding of the properties of currently available indirect restorative systems and fabrication methods is, along with manufacturer and evidence-based literature, an important starting point to guide the clinical selection of materials for tooth and/or implant supported reconstructions. Therefore, this review explores most indirect restorative systems available in the market, especially all-ceramic, along with aspects of manufacturing process, clinical survival rates, and esthetic outcomes.

OVERVIEW

Progressive incorporation of new technologies in the dental field and advancements in materials science have enabled the development/improvement of indirect restorative systems and treatment concepts in oral rehabilitation, resulting in reliable and predictable workflows and successful esthetic and functional outcomes. Indirect restorative systems have evolved from metal ceramics and polymers to glass ceramics, polycrystalline ceramics, and resin-matrix ceramics, aiming to improve not only biological and mechanical properties, but especially the optical properties and esthetic quality of the reconstructions, in attempt to mimic natural teeth.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on several clinical research, materials, and patient-related parameters, a decision tree for the selection of indirect restorative materials was suggested to guide clinicians in the rehabilitation process.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The pace of materials development is faster than that of clinical research aimed to support their use. Since no single material provides an ideal solution to every case, professionals must continuously seek information from well designed, long-term clinical trials in order to incorporate or not new materials and technological advancements.

Retrospective analysis of dental implants placed and restored by advanced prosthodontic residents

PURPOSE

The purposes of this retrospective clinical review were to: (1) describe the demographics of implant patients, types of implant treatment and implant-supported prostheses in an Advanced Education in Prosthodontic Program, (2) evaluate the survival rate of dental implants placed by prosthodontic residents from 2006 to 2008, and (3) analyze the relationship between resident year of training and implant survival rate.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All patients who received dental implants placed by prosthodontic residents from January 2006 to October of 2008 in the Advanced Prosthodontic Program at the University of Illinois at Chicago College of Dentistry were selected for this study. Age, gender, implant diameter, length, implant locations, surgical and restorative detail, and year of prosthodontic residency training were collected and analyzed. Life-table and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were performed based on implants overall, locations, year of training, and use of a computer-generated surgical guide. A Logrank statistic was performed between implant survival and year of prosthodontic residency training, location, and use of computer-generated surgical guide (α= 0.05).

RESULTS

Three hundred and six implants were placed, and of these, seven failed. Life-table and Kaplan-Meier analyses computed a cumulative survival rate (CSR) of 97% for overall implants and implants placed with a computer-generated surgical guide. No statistical difference was found in implant survival rates as a function of year of training (P= 0.85).

CONCLUSION

Dental implants placed by prosthodontic residents had a CSR comparable to previously published studies by other specialties. The year of prosthodontic residency training and implant failure rate did not have any significant relationship.