Current Research On Dental Implants

Dr. Irfan Atcha is offering an innovative procedure—one that does not involve bone transplants—to end the struggles of chronic denture patients. The procedure, which utilizes Zygomatic dental implants, will provide new teeth to patients who could not wear implant-supported teeth on their upper jaw due to the lack of supportive bone. According to Dr. Atcha, these new alternatives allow him to fabricate either a removable or fixed implant-supported set of teeth.

Dental implants are strong, permanent restorations that last for many, many years. In fact, they actually can restore almost 100 percent of your natural chewing power! We also focus on aesthetics — our crowns are crafted to look as lifelike as possible. We take matching your color, size, and shape specifications very seriously. We can help you get the beautiful, secure replacement teeth you need.

There are two type of dental implant; regular and mini. The latter is often comprehensive and complicated, and requires a lot of strenuous procedures that often involves digging into the jaw and crafting of the bone. This often pushes a number of people away.

Like most of my colleagues, I entered dental school unsure of specialty choice. It then motivated me to seek opportunities in various internship and externship programs to explore the many facets of dental medicine. Upon graduation from dental school, I attended the Eastman Institute for Oral Health of the University of Rochester, where my curiosity and interest in endodontics arose. Through various lectures and hands-on workshops on endodontics and microscopic dentistry, I was amazed and intrigued by the intricate and precise aspects required in the field of endodontics. I have also come to further appreciate the importance of preserving the integrity of a natural dentition.

Subsequent a symposium held at McGill University in 2002, a panel of experts prepared the following statement: (the evidence currently available suggests that the restoration of the edentulous mandible with a conventional denture is no longer the most appropriate first choice prosthodontic treatment. There is now overwhelming evidence that a two-implant overdenture should become the first choice of treatment for the edentulous mandible) .Moreover, empirical studies have reported

Along with fractography and fractographic analysis of different types of instrument failure, with prevention and management of endodontic instrument fracture. My research strives to combine studies of basic biomaterial science questions with research on clinical applications. I must mention that this was only possible with the help of the UBC graduate endodontic team.

The implant-retained overdenture is a treatment option for edentulous patients in the following situations: poorly retained and unstable mandibular dentures, poor bone quality or insufficient available bone to accommodate 4 or more implants, as the original Branemark protocol suggests, and to aid patients with financial constraints. When compared to the fixed implant-supported restoration, the removable implant-retained overdenture offers several advantages including enhanced access for oral hygiene, easy modification of prosthesis base, and the provision of a labial flange to improve esthetics in situations of unfavorable jaw relationship.

With all these results, many variations among materials, operators, and patients can contribute to these clinical failures. Therefore, further clinical research and studies are necessary to evaluate the performance of the restorative materials and to determine the factors related to the failures as many conditions cannot be reproduced in the labatory. In previous studies, evaluations of the studies showed that in a period of 5-12 years, the success was 85 to 98 percent. In the longest follow-up mentioned by Dr.

Both the control and implant exhibited a thickened periosteum over the defected area, however specimens with the implant were filled with differentiated and differentiating bone. In the control the bone defect was still evident due to minimal repair compared to the implant specimen, thus the implant had more bone healing potential than the control.

In the last few decades, Science has discovered many fascinating discoveries which has increased life expectancy and have made human lives less painful. One of the brilliant discoveries has been being able to renovate human body parts. However, all of these great techniques and methods to “repair” human body parts also have the side effects. The greatest example would be dental implantation which brings back the ‘taste’ in many lives. While reading the article, “Prevalence and Predictive Factors for Peri-Implant Disease and Implant Failure: A Cross-Sectional Analysis”, I learned that dental implantation is also causing the disease called “Peri-implant” which cause discomfort, negative impact on health and may lead to loss of the implant.

Bone Graft – Adds bone mass to areas that need reinforcement to support successful dental implants.

Removing the titanium proved to be problematic as he found the bone had completely integrated in the implant making it unremovable without causing fracture to the rabbit’s bone. Brånemark then realized the usefulness of titanium implants in humans. Osseointegration made it’s way into the dental field and the first human to receive dental implants was in 1965. The work of Per-Ingvar Brånemark was not widely accepted, in fact, his work was often disregarded by other researchers and scientists. Thirty years were spent by Brånemark fighting to have osseointegration taken seriously. The scientific community finally accepted his concepts with help from a Canadian prosthodontist, George Zarb in 1983. Finally, Brånemark’s work was noticed and he is now known as the “father of modern dental implantology”. Even though it was at first thought to be a ridiculous idea, the usage of titanium implants and the discovery of osseointegration has proven to be valuable in medical

Internal fixation devices in the past had been made of stainless steel or titanium, but with problems resulting from those permanent devices, an innovative approach is being considered. Bioresorbable implants are a possible replacement to the original implants that would eliminate the need for removal, which has shown to be a problem for traditional implants.

A Systemic review of survival rate of mandibular overdenture supported by two or four implants did not show any significant difference(36). Survey of 16 nationally representative academic prosthodontists in the United States showed that their first choice of treatment for edentoulus patients was the mandibular implant supported overdenture with 2 implants(37). Randomized clinical trial showed that the mandibular overdenture supported by 2 implant treatment is preferred by patients over the bar attachment treatments. This preference occurs despite greater prosthesis retention with the 4-implant bar. 52% selected the independent ball attachment, 32% the 4-implant bar, and 16% the 2-implant bar(38). Reducing the number of implants required to support an overdenture, the cost can be reduced. Studying the forces falling on implants by either finite element and strain gauge showed that two instead of four implants in the mandible can also offer an almost equal amount of stability to the denture(39). Cross section study on twenty five patient’s satisfaction level who had a complete denture supported one or two or three implants shows no statistical difference(40). Photoelastic study showed that varying the number of implants had no

These positive results could be explained by various biological events occurring during bone healing process, dependent on aspects such as primary stability of the implant, the surgical technique, the prosthetic load and the associated inflammatory response.(84)