PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
PROSTHETIC RECONSTRUCTIONS AND REFERRING IMPLANT SURVIVAL IN A POSTGRADUATE PROGRAM: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY
Meret Cécile Gebistorf 1, 2a, Christina Laura Bader 2b, Takuro Takeichi 3, 4c, Joannis Katsoulis 2, 4, 5d *
1
Department of Orthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
2
Former Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
3
Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Aichi Gakuin University, Nagoya, Japan
4
Department of Preventive and Restorative Sciences, University of Pennsylvania School of Dental Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA
5
Department of Reconstructive Dentistry and Gerodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland a
DMD, Postgraduate Student b
DMD, Postgraduate Student c
DDS, Lecture( Aichi Gakuin University), Adjunct associate professor( University of Pennsylvania) d
DMD, PhD, MAS, Associate Professor( University of Bern), Adjunct Associate Professor( University of Pennsylvania)
Received: July 12, 2016 Accepted: July 14, 2016
Available online: August 19, 2016
Cite this article: Gebistorf MC, Bader CL, Takeichi T, Katsoulis J. Prosthetic reconstructions and referring implant survival in a postgraduate program: A retrospective study. Stoma Edu J. 2016; 3( 2): 223-234.
ABSTRACT
Aims: To analyze frequency distribution of prosthetic reconstructions and therapeutic modalities with implant-supported reconstructions( ISRs) applied in a university graduate program. Methodology: Data of implant placement and related ISR were obtained from treatment plans, surgical protocols and patients’ charts, covering the 2005 to 2010 time period. Loading time, implant survival and type of ISR, i. e. fixed( single crown( SC), short-span fixed dental prosthesis( FDP), full-arch FDP( IB)) and removable ISR( denture with ball attachments( RDP), bar-supported overdenture( Bar-IOD)) were determined and analyzed with descriptive statistical methods. Results: Data of 819 patients with a mean age of 62.3 ± 11.6 years were available. Graduate students placed 2337 implants and 1133 related ISRs were fabricated. The observation time ranged from 1 to 8 years( mean 4.7 ± 1.8). The number of implants supporting fixed and removable ISRs was 1053( 45.1 %) and 1284( 54.9 %), respectively. The percentage distribution of implants per ISRs exhibited 337 / 337 SCs( 14.4 %), 422 / 190 FDPs( 18.1 %), 294 / 54 IBs( 12.6 %), 374 / 198 RDPs( 16.0 %) and 910 / 354 Bar-IODs( 38.9 %). Thirty-one implants were lost( 12 before and 19 after loading) resulting in an 8-year cumulative survival rate of 98.6 % without difference between implants of different groups( fixed vs. removable ISRs, splinted vs. non-splinted ISRs, no GBR / SFE vs. GBR / SFE, upper vs. lower jaw). Conclusions: A broad variety of fixed and removable implant supported prostheses for partially and completely edentulous patients was identified. Although these data represent learning curves for graduate students working under supervision, implant survival was successful in a short-term range. Keywords: implant-dentistry, graduate training, implant survival, prosthetic reconstructions, CAD / CAM.
1. Introduction Implant dentistry has become an integral part of clinical practice. Already in the early nineties when basic research in osseointegration and clinical application of implants grew rapidly, clinicians and university educators discussed the teaching of implantology for undergraduate students and for postgraduate trainings 1. At this time the lack of trained and qualified teachers appeared to be a limitation when implantology should be introduced in university curricula 2. However, gradually implant restorations were included into general and specialist dental practice 3. Nevertheless, the topic of undergraduate training was taken up again only after the year 2000 and is currently being discussed worldwide. Surveys and reviews that gathered data from dental schools in Northern America and less frequently in Europe revealed that implant dentistry has been incorporated to a high percentage into the undergraduate training 4-11. Teaching implant dentistry often focused on the surgical aspects
* Corresponding author:
Prof. Dr. Joannis Katsoulis, DMD, PhD, MAS Department of Reconstructive Dentistry and Gerodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 7, CH-3010 Bern, Switzerland Tel: + 41.31.632.25.86, Fax: + 41.31.632.49.33, e-mail: joannis. katsoulis @ zmk. unibe. ch
223