Prosthodontic program directors' perceptions regarding implant placement by prosthodontic residents: a 2004 survey conducted by the Educational Policy Subcommittee of the American College of Prosthodontists.

PURPOSE: In 2004, a survey regarding implant placement by prosthodontic residents was conducted by the Educational Policy Subcommittee of the American College of Prosthodontists (ACP). The aim of the survey was to assess the current trends in implant curricula at advanced graduate prosthodontics programs in the United States and Canada and determine the issues surrounding surgical implant training for prosthodontic residents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The survey was mailed to the prosthodontic/maxillofacial prosthetic program directors of the 59 prosthodontic graduate programs in the United States and Canada in 2004. Of these, 27 program directors replied, yielding a response rate of 46%. RESULTS: Of the replying programs, 43% either required residents to place or offered the option to have residents place implants. Forty-four percent reported that residents participate by functioning as first assistants for some of their implant patients, 40% have a specific curriculum to train residents in implant placement, 50% reported not having any institutional barriers that prevent program directors from training prosthodontic residents in implant placement, 51% provide implant training using plastic jaws, and 66% of the programs required residents to observe implant surgery in the clinic before they are permitted to place implants. Of prosthodontic residents who treated implant-related patients, the majority treated 11 to 20 patients during their residency. In 2004, 40% of program directors were not trained in the placement of dental implants, and if they did have the implant training, the majority (82%) stated that the nature of their training was 1- to 3-day course(s). CONCLUSIONS: This survey showed that implant dentistry has become an integral part of the postgraduate prosthodontic curriculum. The trends to incorporate implant placement into the postgraduate prosthodontic curriculum were already evident prior to 2004. To address the demand for implant treatment in patient care and enhance surgical implant knowledge, the ACP in 2005 added placement of implants to its Accreditation Standards for Advanced Specialty Education Programs in Prosthodontics.

Teaching implant dentistry in the predoctoral curriculum: a report from the ADEA Implant Workshop's survey of deans.

In 2004, a survey of the deans of U.S. and Canadian dental schools was conducted to determine the implant dentistry curriculum structure and the extent of incorporating implant dentistry clinical treatment into predoctoral programs. The questionnaire was mailed to the deans of the fifty-six dental schools in advance of the ADEA Implant Workshop conference held in Arizona in November 2004. Out of the fifty-six, thirty-nine responded, yielding a response rate of 70 percent. Thirty-eight schools (97 percent) reported that their students received didactic instruction in dental implants, while one school (3 percent) said that its students did not. Thirty schools (86 percent) reported that their students received clinical experience, while five schools (14 percent) reported that theirs did not. Four schools (10 percent) did not respond to this question. Fifty-one percent of the students actually receive the clinical experience in restoring implants, with the range of 5-100 percent. Of those schools that provide clinical experience in restoring implants, four schools (13 percent) reported that it is a requirement for them, while twenty-eight schools (88 percent) reported that it is not a requirement for them. Three schools (9 percent) did not respond. The fee for implants is 45 percent higher than a crown or a denture, with a range of 0-100 percent. Twenty-nine schools (85 percent) indicated that they did receive free components from implant companies, while five schools (15 percent) did not. The conclusions of this report are as follows: 1) most schools have advanced dental education programs; 2) single-tooth implant restorations are performed at the predoctoral level in most schools; 3) implant-retained overdenture prostheses are performed at the predoctoral level in most schools; 4) there is no predoctoral clinical competency requirement for surgical implant placement in all schools that responded to the survey; 5) there is no predoctoral clinical competency requirement for implant prosthodontics in most schools that responded to the survey; 6) prosthodontic specialty faculty are often responsible for teaching implant prosthodontics at the predoctoral level; 7) periodontics and oral and maxillofacial faculty are commonly responsible for teaching implant surgery at the predoctoral level; 8) support from implant companies is common for dental schools, with most providing for implant components at discounted costs; and 9) there is a lack of adequately trained faculty in implant dentistry, which is a significant challenge in providing predoctoral students with clinical experience with dental implants.

Assessing the space limitation inside a complete denture for implant attachments.

Accurate determination of the space defined by the physiological contouring of a complete denture (before and after implant surgery) is required during the treatment-planning phase for an implant overdenture. This determination assists in formulating the proper surgical treatment plan and in selecting the appropriate independent implant overdenture attachment. This article presents a technique that provides clear, visual space limitation analysis of the removable prosthesis. The described method allows the clinician to determine the available space before the implant or attachment is placed.

Classification system for partial edentulism.

The American College of Prosthodontists (ACP) has developed a classification system for partial edentulism based on diagnostic findings. This classification system is similar to the classification system for complete edentulism previously developed by the ACP. These guidelines are intended to help practitioners determine appropriate treatments for their patients. Four categories of partial edentulism are defined, Class I to Class IV, with Class I representing an uncomplicated clinical situation and class IV representing a complex clinical situation. Each class is differentiated by specific diagnostic criteria. This system is designed for use by dental professionals involved in the diagnosis and treatment of partially edentulous patients. Potential benefits of the system include (1) improved intraoperator consistency, (2) improved professional communication, (3) insurance reimbursement commensurate with complexity of care, (4) improved screening tool for dental school admission clinics, (5) standardized criteria for outcomes assessment and research, (6) enhanced diagnostic consistency, and (7) simplified aid in the decision to refer a patient.

A simple method of making an implant-level impression when presented with limited space, unfavorable implant positions, or problematic implant angulations.

Making an implant-level impression for the purpose of abutment selection when implants are placed in limited space, unfavorable positions, or compromising angulations can be a time-consuming procedure. An impression procedure is presented that makes use of either prefabricated screw-retained titanium implant index copings or plastic snap-on implant index copings to help resolve problematic implant placement. Both the titanium and plastic implant index copings are easy to modify and therefore make impression procedures more predictable.