Classification of Molar Extraction Sites for Immediate Dental Implant Placement: Technical Note

2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 911-916 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard B. Smith ◽  
Dennis P. Tarnow
Keyword(s):  
Dental Implant ◽  
Technical Note ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Molar Extraction

Successful Dental Implant Placement Surgeries With Buccal Bone Fenestrations

2015 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 112-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liviu Steier ◽  
Gabriela Steier
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Outcomes ◽  
Dental Implant ◽  
Bone Plate ◽  
Comprehensive Review ◽  
Preventative Measures ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Success Criteria ◽  
Implant Treatment

This is the first comprehensive review of the classification, preventative measures, diagnosis, treatment methods, and determination of success criteria of buccal bone plate fenestrations (BPFs) secondary to posterior implant surgeries. The purpose of this review is to present and discuss the current literature from peer-reviewed journals, recent studies, and international implantology guidelines and to provide practitioners with guiding points to identify and understand whether BPFs are complications or accidents of implant surgeries. In addition, this review sets forth a detailed set of criteria for the evaluation and diagnosis of BPFs and for the subsequent classification of BPFs as either complications or accidents of posterior implant surgeries. From the literature analyzed, it is clear that BPFs are disqualified from the class of implant treatment failures because BPFs neither impair nor significantly delay treatment. A comprehensive outline of preventative measures and surgery aids to avoid fenestrating the buccal bone plate during implant placement, and a variety of repair methods are included in this review. Considerations of treatment outcomes and patient sensitivities are also included in this comprehensive review.

Is perioperative antibiotic necessary in straightforward implant placement procedures?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elçin Bedeloğlu ◽  
Mustafa Yalçın ◽  
Cenker Zeki Koyuncuoğlu
Keyword(s):  
Clavulanic Acid ◽  
Dental Implant ◽  
Prophylactic Antibiotic ◽  
Antibiotic Use ◽  
Implant Failure ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Amoxicillin Clavulanic Acid ◽  
Experimental Group

The purpose of this non-random retrospective cohort study was to evaluate the impact of prophylactic antibiotic on early outcomes including postoperative pain, swelling, bleeding and cyanosis in patients undergoing dental implant placement before prosthetic loading. Seventy-five patients (45 males, 30 females) whose dental implant placement were completed, included to the study. Patients used prophylactic antibiotics were defined as the experimental group and those who did not, were defined as the control group. The experimental group received 2 g amoxicillin + clavulanic acid 1 h preoperatively and 1 g amoxicillin + clavulanic acid twice a day for 5 days postoperatively while the control group had received no prophylactic antibiotic therapy perioperatively. Data on pain, swelling, bleeding, cyanosis, flap dehiscence, suppuration and implant failure were analyzed on postoperative days 2, 7, and 14 and week 12. No statistically significant difference was detected between the two groups with regard to pain and swelling on postoperative days 2, 7, and 14 and week 12 ( p >0.05), while the severity of pain and swelling were greater on day 2 compared to day 7 and 14 and week 12 in both groups ( p =0.001 and p <0.05, respectively). Similarly, no significant difference was found between the two groups with regard to postoperative bleeding and cyanosis. Although flap dehiscence was more severe on day 7 in the experimental group, no significant difference was found between the two groups with regard to the percentage of flap dehiscence assessed at other time points. Within limitations of the study, it has been demonstrated that antibiotic use has no effect on implant failure rates in dental implant surgery with a limited number of implants. We conclude that perioperative antibiotic use may not be required in straightforward implant placement procedures. Further randomized control clinical studies with higher numbers of patients and implants are needed to substantiate our findings.

Dental Implant Placement in Patients with a History of Medications Related to Osteonecrosis of the Jaws: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judd Sher ◽  
Kate Kirkham-Ali ◽  
Denny Luo ◽  
Catherine Miller ◽  
Dileep Sharma
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
At Risk ◽  
Drug Therapy ◽  
Dental Implant ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Bisphosphonate Treatment ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
History Of

The present systematic review evaluates the safety of placing dental implants in patients with a history of antiresorptive or antiangiogenic drug therapy. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Web of Science, and OpenGrey databases were used to search for clinical studies (English only) to July 16, 2019. Study quality was assessed regarding randomization, allocation sequence concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other biases using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist for case series. A broad search strategy resulted in the identification of 7542 studies. There were 28 studies reporting on bisphosphonates (5 cohort, 6 case control, and 17 case series) and one study reporting on denosumab (case series) that met the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative synthesis. The quality assessment revealed an overall moderate quality of evidence among the studies. Results demonstrated that patients with a history of bisphosphonate treatment for osteoporosis are not at increased risk of implant failure in terms of osseointegration. However, all patients with a history of bisphosphonate treatment, whether taken orally for osteoporosis or intravenously for malignancy, appear to be at risk of ‘implant surgery-triggered’ MRONJ. In contrast, the risk of MRONJ in patients treated with denosumab for osteoporosis was found to be negligible. In conclusion, general and specialist dentists should exercise caution when planning dental implant therapy in patients with a history of bisphosphonate and denosumab drug therapy. Importantly, all patients with a history of bisphosphonates are at risk of MRONJ, necessitating this to be included in the informed consent obtained prior to implant placement. The James Cook University College of Medicine and Dentistry Honours program and the Australian Dental Research Foundation Colin Cormie Grant were the primary sources of funding for this systematic review.

scholarly journals Artificial Intelligence in Fractured Dental Implant Detection and Classification: Evaluation Using Dataset from Two Dental Hospitals

Diagnostics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 233
Author(s):  
Dong-Woon Lee ◽  
Sung-Yong Kim ◽  
Seong-Nyum Jeong ◽  
Jae-Hong Lee
Keyword(s):  
Dental Implant ◽  
Classification Accuracy ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Mechanical Complication ◽  
Radiographic Images ◽  
Acceptable Accuracy ◽  
Reliable Detection ◽  
Classification Evaluation ◽  
Accuracy Performance

Fracture of a dental implant (DI) is a rare mechanical complication that is a critical cause of DI failure and explantation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of a three different deep convolutional neural network (DCNN) architectures (VGGNet-19, GoogLeNet Inception-v3, and automated DCNN) for the detection and classification of fractured DI using panoramic and periapical radiographic images. A total of 21,398 DIs were reviewed at two dental hospitals, and 251 intact and 194 fractured DI radiographic images were identified and included as the dataset in this study. All three DCNN architectures achieved a fractured DI detection and classification accuracy of over 0.80 AUC. In particular, automated DCNN architecture using periapical images showed the highest and most reliable detection (AUC = 0.984, 95% CI = 0.900–1.000) and classification (AUC = 0.869, 95% CI = 0.778–0.929) accuracy performance compared to fine-tuned and pre-trained VGGNet-19 and GoogLeNet Inception-v3 architectures. The three DCNN architectures showed acceptable accuracy in the detection and classification of fractured DIs, with the best accuracy performance achieved by the automated DCNN architecture using only periapical images.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document