Finite element analysis (FEA) has been proven to be a precise and applicable method for evaluating dental implant systems. By means of FEA, a parasaggital model was digitized from a computed tomography (CT)-generated patient data set, and various single-tooth, osseointegrated, two-dimensional dental implant models were simulated. The specific aims of the study were to: (1) examine the effect of implant diameter variation (3.8 mm-6.5 mm) of both a press-fit, stepped cylindrical implant type and a press-fit, straight cylindrical implant type as osseointegrated in the posterior mandible; (2) compare the stress-dissipating characteristics of the stepped implant versus the straight implant design; and (3) analyze the significance of bite force direction (vertical, horizontal, and oblique 45 degrees) on both implant types. The results of the FEA suggested that (1) using the widest diameter implant is not necessarily the best choice when considering stress distribution to surrounding bone, but within certain morphological limits, for both implant types, an optimum dental implant exists for decreasing the stress magnitudes at the bone-implant interface; (2) stress is more evenly dissipated throughout the stepped cylindrical implant when compared to the straight implant type; and (3) it is important in FEA of dental implants to consider not only axial forces (vertical loading) and horizontal forces (moment-causing loads), but also to consider a combined load (oblique bite force), since these are more realistic bite directions and for a given force will cause the highest localized stress in cortical bone. The theoretical analysis performed implies that clinically, whenever possible, an optimum, not necessarily larger, dental implant should be used based on the specific morphological limitations of the mandible and that a stepped cylindrical design for press-fit situations is most desirable from the standpoint of stress distribution to surrounding bone.
Surveys of US dental schools over the last 20 years have reported a continual increase in the number and types of predoctoral and postdoctoral implant dentistry programs being taught. The purpose of the following article is to report on the results of a survey intended to update the status of predoctorl programs with respect to their curricular placement, departmental jurisdictions, and course contents. In June 1993, 54 US dental schools received the implant dentistry curriculum survey, and 50 of the schools (93%) returned responses. Results indicate that the trend toward implementation of more predoctoral implant dentistry programs has been sustained, with 86% of schools reporting the existence of implant curricula. This compares with 33% and 73% of US schools having such programs in 1974 and 1989, respectively. The major reasons that schools gave for not having implant dentistry courses for predoctoral students are a lack of curriculum time and scarce financial resources. The dental disciplines most frequently guiding such programs are oral surgery and periodontics. Schools offer varying degrees of lectures, laboratories, and clinical experiences in predoctoral implant dentistry, with the number of curriculum hours peaking in years three and four. General curricular topics most commonly include a historical overview of implant dentistry, diagnosis and treatment planning, classifications and types of dental implants, and surgical and prosthodontic procedures. Seventeen percent of schools require some form of undergraduate clinical implant dentistry exposure for all of their students.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.