Talk:Dental implant

Comment

This article is much better than Osseointegration, it might might be more helpful if the other one was replaced with a redirect to this one.

I changed the definition of dental implants from a "part of restorative dentistry" to "part of prosthetic dentistry" to be more consistent with its true intent. "Restorative dentistry" more properly deals with the structural re-building of a damaged tooth, whereas prosthetic dentistry most commonly involves replacement of missing teeth or other maxillofacial structures. See the definition of Dental restoration --
Mark Bornfeld DDS
dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY 16:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Dental implants are items and osseointegration is a biological process -- the articles should remain separate and distinct. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The article should include price ranges. As it stands it is simular to marketing for implant sites. Tom Fallon tomsails40@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.67.242 (talk) 14:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Success Rate

I removed the phrase "Dental implant treatment is regarded as having a very high success rate", since the next sentence quantifies the success rate. This renders the relative and judgemental phrase "very high" redundant.--Mark Bornfeld DDS 15:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Introducing a timing factor into the article

The current success rate of osseointegration is 98.5% success osseointergration within 12 weeks * Pjetursson et al 2008, 2009. The reported 5 and 10 year survival rates for single implant reconstructions are 5 Year 94.5% and 10 Year 89~90%.

Additionaly should this be survival as opposed to success?. There is a difference between survival and success, survival is dictated and a binary system, if it is in the mouth then it has survived. Success however is the absence of problems. There were proposed success criteria put out after Albrektsson et al. IJOMI 1986, 1:11

1 An individual, unattached implant is immobile when tested clinicaly

2 Radiographic examination does not reveal any peri-implant radiolucency

3 After the first year in function, radiographic bone loss is less then 0.2mm per annum

4 The individual implant performance is characterised by an abcence of signs or symptoms such as pain, infections, neuropathies, paraesthesia, or violation of the IAN —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lint.n (talk • contribs) 02:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

pictures needed

anyone whos got pictures, put em up --Aspensti I agree - this article definately needs some color diagrams. I have put up a link where there are some nice ones but I don't think we are allowed to copy them. I will email the site and see if they will allow it or not.

Deleted Submission Question

Bbowenjr 12:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)I am new to Wikipedia and would like to understand why a link I submitted (http://www.studysphere.com/Site/Sphere_13920.html) to the "External Links" section was deleted? This directory has over 3,000 human selected articles and dental implant resources in it. Thank you for any assistance.Bbowenjr 12:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm; dunno. There is a reluctance on WP to add external links - see WP:EL for guidance. However, this article is already pretty heavy with links and this does seem a useful one. I have therefore added it back. If someone wants to remove it again then they will be expected to discuss their reasoning here. BlueValour 03:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a hint: studysphere.com links have been campaign-spammed to Wikipedia; see 29 November 2006 discussion at WT:WPSPAM. Bbowenjr added them to a wide range of articles from Dental implants to Military robots. There's been a misconception among some spamdexers that if they get a link deleted they can question the deletion on the talk page and still get the page rank benefit; this is wrong since all Wikipedia talk and user page links are automatically coded with the html tag rel="nofollow"; search engine bots don't follow these links. --A. B. 23:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

External Links

This community should limit how Dr. Robert Davidoff self-promotes himself on Wikipedia via his dental-implants.com website and his dds-online.com site. Will someone please edit out his external links.

I am not certain why the external link www.planetimplant.com was deleted. The site is educational, providing detailed information on implants in general, ancillary procedures and many individual implant systems for both the public and for dentists with an interest. This information is not included in the article. The site does not sell anything other than listings of dentists. -Oraldr (10/16/10) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oraldr (talk • contribs) 17:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Added The Dental Implant Blog

It's the official blog of the ICOI's Auxiliary component. It's non-sponsored. I've submitted it before and it was deleted - not sure why. Please contact me at user name TeresaDuncan or through my blog if you have any questions about it. Thank you.

Teresaduncan (talk) 04:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Teresa Duncan, M.S.

I took a look at the website, and I found that the content was not focused on dental implants. Thus, the link was removed from the external links section. - Dozenist talk 13:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Strange content

Why is this sentence included:

“In Israel, single implants begin around 5000 NIS, comparable to Turkey and Egypt where they begin around 700-800$,while in Iraq single implants begin around 250-350$.”

I can’t imagine that many implant procedures are performed in Iraq right now. . . Is this subtle vandalism? --S.dedalus (talk) 05:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

rejected implants?

any evidence of rejected implants or side effects to other parts of the body suggesting rejection?24.116.238.101 (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Titanium is completely biocompatible. There is thus no aberrant host response that could lead to a true rejection, per se. There can, however, be infection that can easily lead to early or late dental implant failure. Other than infection (termed peri-implantitis, the other reason for implant failure is mechanical overload. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

types of implants

I think this article should include a very important section on various types of dental implant system available now and cons and pors of each. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.146.47.210 (talk) 05:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

'properly trained'

an anonymous user has altered the order of which 'specialists; should/can be placing implants. now that it's in the spectrum of many general dentists what does everyone think about removing which dentists' place implants. The sentence could read 'a dentist with training in dental implants' - i'm not sure what the standards are around the world.Ian Furst (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Titanium 6/4

In the section on composition, this article states that implants are usually made of Ti₆AlV₄ - This is written to look like a chemical compound, it should be written Ti-6Al-4V signifying the Titanium alloy containing 6% Aluminium and 4% Vanadium. There is a page on it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanium_6AL-4V

Also higher tensile strength does not necessarily lead to higher resistance to fracture, thus, the word 'thus' should be removed. J33los (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hardly -- titanium alloy is certainly not as widespread as this makes it seem they are. Commercially pure titanium is still the primary implant material. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Define Terms First

This article starts right off with "osseointegrated implant and the fibrointegrated implant", and then goes on to use those terms right away. They mean absolutely nothing to the average person and must be defined before use. Varkstuff (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Surgical Timing and Immediate Placement

The "Surgical Timing" and "Immediate Placement" sections imply that dental implants occur ONLY after extraction when in reality it seems to not be the only scenario (tooth agenesis, for instance). —Preceding unsigned comment added by CH3374H (talk • contribs) 20:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Patients' perspectives

Having just undergone major oral reconstruction including nine implants, four bridges, and crowns on every tooth over 18 months I would like to suggest that a section in the article dealing with patients perspectives may be useful. While the scientific and technical descriptions here have certainly been useful for me, the article does not provide me as a patient with the opportunity to make some non-scientific contributions. I suggest that the majority of people reading the information on this page will not be dentists but people contemplating undertaking implants.

Placing this in context I decided to have my work done in Thailand, primarily because of the prohibitive costs that the significant treatment was going to incur in Australia where I live. This decision was done with a great deal of concern that the treatment and results would be of the highest quality. As things have turned out to me, the results have been excellent, and the treatment that I received as a patient was outstanding.

Some areas that could be included are:

• Choosing a prospective dentists, doing your research
• Decisions relating to cost
• Dental tourism
• The "experience" -- what it feels like to undertake major dental reconstruction
• Things that dentists can do and say, and explain, to better help the patient understand what is going on, what are the consequences, and to help the patient's peace of mind

If there is another place where I might add these suggestions, and where others could contribute, you might let me know here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg Shaw (talk • contribs) 04:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

While your comments are certainly welcome and you brought up some wonderful points, many of your specific recommendations are really out of bounds for this article for the following reasons:

• Choosing a dentist has nothing to do with implants per se -- such a section, if deemed encyclopedic (which I doubt) would belong in the dentist article.
• While cost certainly plays a part in accepting a treatment plan, any mention more than the need to integrate cost into one's overall treatment cost-benefit analysis is really excessive.
• Dental tourism has nothing to do with implants per se, other than tourism being a solution for high costs and implants being relatively expensive.
• Experience is highly subjective.
• Things dentists say or do are highly subjective and certainly unencyclopedic.

Perhaps this article needs a complete overhaul, and your points can be built into this process, but high-level focus on these items as you suggest would not be ideal. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

New article Implantology was added. I started to wikify it when finding it very similar in scope to this article. It may have additional and valuable information. Could some experts please see what's worth incorporating here? Thanks. _noisy jinx ^huh? 18:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed -- although implantology is the field of study relating to dental implants, and I don't suggest merging the zoology and animal articles, I don't think having both of these articles contributes to either the comprehensiveness of Wikipedia or any benefit to the lay or professional reader. I think I'll set my sights on merging these two articles and getting them up to speed. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

disagree -- the pages are getting large enough to split into two. Implants (implants themselves) and implantology (the science of the surgery/techniques, etc..). Right now, both are a mishmash of both. Ian Furst (talk) 14:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The articles may be large quantitatively, but the implantology article is far from large qualitatively. The text is either more closely related to dental implants themselves, is poor in scope and content or not really useful because it's, as you say, a mishmash of words and sentences without real direction or objective. Perhaps I'll just work on dental implants and try to trim this article of the weak content it possesses. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

sounds good - if you're looking for some help with the content I'm happy to help -- let me know a section you'd like edited...pics...whatever. Ian Furst (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

As this is not generating much discussion at all, I'm removing the merger tab from the article. Secondary to that, I'll be moving the bulk of the surgical technique information to the implantology article, as that's where it belongs. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

History of dental implants

There's certainly a place for information related to ancient use of gold, bone and chips of plaster and pottery implanted into the jaw bones -- but it should not be in this article as it adds clutter and shifts the focus of what most people are looking for when they get to this page. As in almost every dental text book dealing with implants, a short summary of such information is provided, but the focus quickly shifts to modern medicine. I think a similar thing should be done here, with the bulk of ancient Mayan and Chinese dentistry placed into an article entitled History of dental implants, which can be linked to as a "Main Article" link at the heading of the subsequently summarized section. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

agree with the above - it's one thing to talk about modern dental implants but older versions are not particularly relavent in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Furst (talk • contribs) 19:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

moved from article

lade implants usually fibrointegrated. The most widely accepted and successful implant today is the osseointegrated implant, based on the discovery by Swedish Professor Per-Ingvar Brånemark that titanium can be successfully fused into bone when osteoblasts grow on and into the rough surface of the implanted titanium. This forms a structural and functional connection between the living bone and the implant.

Katesisco (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC) need for dental colleges/dental assoc post to net & update

I searched and all I came up with was forum of individuals which is not helpful when assessing this procedure. Please have dental colleges, National Ass of Dentists keep updated page with info regarding historical timeline of implant patients. How else can we really know how implants are successful unless dental collages post their history of implants to the web on a current basis? The ADA should be a leader in this current posting instead of letting the consumer wander among private postings!

"A dental implant is considered to be a failure if it [shows peri-implant] bone loss of greater than 1.0 mm in the first year and greater than 0.2mm a year after." Can 1.0 mm possibly be correct?

Given the scale of the implant itself, a 1 mm loss of bone (in which direction?) seems large enough to significantly loosen it. Though tempted to "correct" it to 0.1 mm, instead I raise the question for anyone more informed. (See also the discussion on success rates, which does not quantitatively address bone loss in the first year but confirms the quantity and thus the scale for subsequent years.)

Should the 1.0 mm figure be correct, does it require any further comment with respect to the discrepancy of scale or direction of loss? Michael (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

After attachment to a transmucosal healing/temporary restorative abutment, implants will generally lose some bone because of the establishment of biologic width. As such, some bone loss was classically accepted as a given. Albrektsson gave some figures for that, and it's generally accepted that bone will move apically to the first thread, which is 1.5-2mm from the platform. Even an 8mm implant (shown, by randomized controlled trial to be the longest implant at which shortened length is shown to be significant) that loses 5mm of supporting bone may not exhibit mobility, because dental implants osseointegrate and are thus comparable to ankylosed teeth which are connected directly to the bone. The prognosis will be unfavorable, and the restored implant might very well be a prosthetic nightmare, but that would fall under a failure of success rather than survival, seeing how the implant is still functionally fused and able to tolerate occlusal stresses. Make sure you mind that difference between success and survival, as it's a little trick that authors can employ. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

File:3M ESPE MDI.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:3M ESPE MDI.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 18 August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Implanturi dentare

Implanturi dentare sau radacini artificiale, din titan sau zirconiu, ce inlocuiesc radacinile naturale ale dintilor si au ca scop crearea suportului pentru realizarea de coroane sau punti dentare, atunci cand pe arcada nu mai sunt prezenti dinti sau cand cei prezenti nu se califica pentru un tratament dentar de succes.

Practic, implanturile dentare se prezinta sub forma de "surub", cu un relief divers, in functie de categoria din care fac parte si de producator. Astazi, cele mai de succes si cele mai des folosite in lumea medicala dentara sunt reprezentate de implanturi dentare din titan, osteotintegrat endo-osos (cu alte cuvinte, implantri care se insereaza complet in osul maxilar sau mandubular si in jurul caruia se formeaza substanta osoasa, os).

Pasii pentru un implant dentar:

• Primul pas este reprezentat de consultatie.
• In cea de a doua sedinta - medicul implantolog va analiza examenele complementare cerute, va prezenta pacientului eventualele particularitati observate in urma realizarii acestora si in cele din urma va da sau nu acceptul pentru interventia de inserare a implantului dentar.
• Inserarea implantului dentar - pentru a se introduce implantul dentar este necesar in prealabil crearea unei cavitati la nivel osos, maxilar sau mandibular, cavitate realizata cu ajutorul unei aparaturi specifice, freze speciale, utilizand tehnici si viteze adecvate fiecarui caz particular. Dupa realizarea cavitatii, implantul dentar se infileteaza (autofilentant) in cavitatea creata, avand in vedere si urmarind aplicarea unor forte de infiletare extreme de precise.

In functie de implantul folosit protezarea poate fi aplicata pe loc sau in termen de maxim 6 luni de la interventie, timp in care vindecarea va fi completa iar zambetul dumneavoastra va fi gata sa straluceasca !

Implanturi dentare

Souljahdgw (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)