Current Research On Dental Implants

2313 Words10 Pages
Raminderjeet Kaur Prof. Cheng BIOE 324 4/30/15 Current Research in Dental Implants Medicine and technology have been evolving for centuries. New practices, drugs, and therapies are constantly emerging to better adapt to the needs of the new era. One such development is the widespread use of dental implants. Gone are the days where civilizations would carve shells and implant them into the mandible. Dental implants have evolved from using allograft and xenograft to using ceramic material for osseointegration. [15] While ceramics provide superior osseointegration properties, new research is being conducted to improve the surface properties of implant materials to reduce the recovery time after implantation. [12] Coelho et al consider this…show more content…
[12] [14] To satisfy these ambitions, the authors speculated that alterations in both surgical and restorative procedures as well as implant design may affect the treatment short and long-term outcomes. They suspected that “implant design may have been rationalization driven by implant therapy protocol alteration toward diminishing the period allowed for bone healing after implant placement instead of being based on well-designed in vitro, laboratory in vivo and clinical research results.” [12] Limitations in previous designs have rarely been investigated, but surface modifications have been extensively in an attempt to increase the rate of bone healing and thereby allowing the early loading of dental implants. [14] The article claims there to be a “lack of hierarchical approach that has led to difficulties in isolating the topographic and chemical parameters that provide the optimum bone healing around the dental implants.” [12] It further recognized literature inconsistencies in respect to the mechanistic effect of surface modifications in short term and long term loading of implants. It calls for more accurate clinical studies to be performed that consider different implant surfaces. The authors further put clinicians in charge of interpreting in vitro, laboratory in vivo, and clinical study data for the effectiveness of new and improved materials. [12] Despite a well-formed and compelling argument, the authors fail to provide concrete data to support
Open Document