GET IN TOUCH TODAY
I love hearing from colleagues about teeth or life! Please don't hesitate to drop me a line if you have any questions or you just want to connect.
If you are just starting out in implantology and you are looking for a mentor, or if you're looking to get involved in the world of implants, I'd love to hear from you.
Free to download and share for anyone who will value them.
A brief overview of common dental implant problems and their management useful for general dental teams to help their patients with dental implants
Some full texts available on Research Gate
K Walker-Finch, C Ucer
British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 2020
Digitally-designed static surgical guides provide an acceptable level of accuracy and predictability for the placement of dental implants. However, to our knowledge, few published studies have compared the long-term survival of implants placed in this way with those placed using other methods. A systematic search of electronic databases using a population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) framework was conducted of Medline and EMBASE, as well as grey literature and hand searches, to obtain all relevant work pertaining to the survival of dental implants placed by guided surgery. The studies were required to have at least 10 patients with a follow up of at least five years. A total of 621 titles were screened. Four studies met the inclusion criteria for quantitative analysis, and they all reported the exclusive use of Nobel Biocare implants and the NobelGuide system (Nobel Biocare Services). Cumulative survival rates ranged from 94.5% to 100% over five years. The survival rates of implants placed using digitally-designed static surgical guides are comparable to the estimated overall survival rate (95.6% over five years), despite the complex nature of the treatments done with guided surgery. Clinicians who do these operations should, however, have the experience and ability to revert to conventional freehand techniques if complications arise.
S P Wright, J Hayden, J A Lynd, K Walker-Finch, J Willet, C Ucer, S D Speechley
British Dental Journal, 2016
Objectives The aim of this paper is to identify the factors that affect the complexity of implant restoration and to explore the indices that help us to assess it. With this knowledge the growing number of clinicians restoring dental implants will have a better understanding of the available guidance and evidence base, and the differing levels of competence required. Study design A literature review was conducted. The selection of publications reporting on complexity was based on predetermined criteria and was agreed upon by the authors. After title and abstract screening 17 articles were reviewed. The articles that were utilised to form the ITI SAC tool and Cologne Risk Assessment we also included. Assessing complexity Two key guides are available: International Team for Implantology’s Straight-forward Advanced Complex tool4 and the Cologne ABC risk score.5 While these guides help identify treatment complexity they do not provide a strong enough evidence base from which to solely base clinical decisions. The key patient factors are expectation, communication, the oral environment, aesthetic outcome, occlusion, soft tissue pro le and the intra-arch distance, whereas the key technical factors are impression taking, type of retention, loading protocol and the need for provisional restorations. Human factors also have a signi cant effect on complexity, speci cally, the experience and training of the clinician, team communication and the work environment. Conclusions There are many interconnecting factors that affect the complexity of dental implant restoration. Furthermore the two widely used indices for the assessment of complexity have been investigated, and although these offer a good guideline as to the level of complexity, there is a lack evidence to support their use. The development of evidence-based treatment and protocols is necessary to develop the current indices further, and these need to be expanded to include other critical areas, such as human factors. A practical guide to aid practitioners in reducing complexity has been proposed.
European Journal of Prosthodontic and Restorative Dentistry, 2011
This investigation aimed to evaluate the colour difference between metal ceramic restorations and their corresponding shades and any reasons for a colour mismatch in the dental laboratory. The colour of 50 consecutive metal ceramic restorations produced in a laboratory was measured using a spectrophotometer and compared to the shade tabs. Colour reproduction was optimal at porcelain thicknesses between 1.4-1.6 mm, varied between technicians within the same laboratory and was better for shades in the 2M group. Most crowns were above the threshold for a clinically acceptable shade match and almost all crowns were lighter than the corresponding shade tab.