From various articles I've read, it appears that the "small diameter" mini implants are significantly different enough that they really should have either a dedicated section, or even better, their own article. The sources I read indicate that there are differences in patient eligibility, bone density requirements at the site of the implant, and recovery/healing times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaEremita ( talk • contribs) 06:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
Implants can be Crestal or Basal by bone placement.By functions can be also bi cortical screw,compression screw,Boi or combination type.Basal implantation has totally different outlook than Crestal.
They are orthopedic implants used in dentistry without complications which are common in Crestal implantation.Basal implants has success rate in risk groups like low jaw bone,smokers,periodontal or peri mplantitis complications.What article is this if there are no information on basal implantation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.217.75 ( talk) 18:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
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)
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.
You can contact us via socialmedia@straumann.com if you wish to get pictures (and more informational material) for this wiki entry (they will of course be "neutral" ones without Straumann branding).
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)
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)
A valuable external link for patients as well as doctors is www.aaid-implant.org which is sponsored by the American Academy of Implant Dentistry. The organization has over 4,500 members around the world and was founded in 1951. The AAID offers credentials in implant dentistry that have been recognized as bonafide by the federal and state courts in the U.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.233.142.241 ( talk) 21:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
lade implants usually fibrointegrated. [1] [2] 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. [3] This forms a structural and functional connection between the living bone and the implant.
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! Katesisco ( talk) 15:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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
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.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 16:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC) |
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:
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 !
Souljahdgw ( talk) 14:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Notwithstanding US spelling in a UK influenced section, what does 'wordly recognized' mean? Is it a corruption of 'widely recognised'? Or is it alluding to the idea of global recognition, a form of 'worldly recognised'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.125.64.152 ( talk) 23:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
It would be helpful-from a patient perspective-to discuss the advantages & purported longevity of crowns vs. implants, based on the assumptions that an implant is otherwise possible without serious risk or complications. Also to include any true or perceived benefit of trying to "save" a natural tooth (even when there is little to nothing left above the gum line), especially within the context of longevity of a crown vs. implant. Djwhite077 ( talk) 15:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I have heard that sapphire is a safer and more bio-compatible material than titanium.
It would be helpful to include this sub-topic.
74.108.171.185 ( talk) 00:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)jeffreygratton@gmail.com
I did not see any info on how effective the anesthesia is or post-op pain involved. Any comments for Implantees? LB, Plano Texas 71.42.140.52 ( talk) 15:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I just had one done. The procedure took about 20 minutes. Didn't feel a thing, except for soreness of having to open very wide. Was prescribed Tylenol 3 for post-op pain. Took a few for the next day or so, none required after. Obviously this will vary and may depend on the dental surgeon. Mine has been doing implants since 1989 and claims a failure rate of about 2% (I didn't realize how good that was until I read this page). kovesp ( talk) 18:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
In the 4th sentence of Composition, Titanium 6AL-4V is introduced as a 5th grade of titanium. In the next 2 sentences we see a new reference to Ti- 6Al-4V which is unexplained. One wonders whether these are one and the same thing or not? Capitalization should be preserved in each instance if so, or the newer reference should have some brief explanation as the first reference did. Jintian ( talk) 10:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
It's a type of dental implant. No need for a different page Lesion ( talk) 11:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
While a mini implant is, generally speaking, a type of a dental implant, it deserves to have a page of its own. Mini is significantly different from a traditional implant.
Merely being on a separate page does not suggest that mini implants are other than dental implants. Based on your point of view, it's feasible to lump ALL of the implants together, i.e. breast implants, dental implants, and so on.
Mini dental implants deserve a separate page. This simplifies the research done by a general public, while listing all of the dental implants will further confuse them. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
66.61.123.248 (
talk)
19:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Seeing the articles were merged recently (which I approve, by the way) I've cleaned up some links from other articles to point to the Dental implant article or its MDI section instead of to Mini dental implant and Mini dental implants. I'm not sure I did the formatting correctly (for instance, URLs for section links look pretty ugly pointing to Dental_implant#Mini_dental_implants_.28MDI.29 but when I tried to truncate them, links didn't seem to find the anchor any more) so I'd be grateful if someone would take a few minutes to review my September 9 edits. Thank you.-- Egmonster ( talk) 07:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I removed some recent links to private practices, which had a very strong sense of advertising. Medical content on Wikipedia follows WP:MEDRS sources. Lesion ( talk) 10:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Please no external links which are:
History section addition seemed to focus too much on individual founders of one organization. If I am not mistaken, the first implants were devised by a German Swede. Better refs, consider more global point of view. History section is for history of the science largely, not the history of one organisation.
Lesion (
talk)
21:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I would completely rework this article myself, but I find the topic incredibly boring. For now I will try to remove the EL section entirely, maybe if it is not there then people will be less inclined to linkspam constantly. Lesion ( talk) 22:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
How can you say to "remove emphasis on individuals" and yet leave two paragraphs on Per-Ingvar Branemark? Dr. Leonard Linkow, at 88 years young, was a pioneer of implant dentistry. NYU created an endowed chair in implant dentistry in his name. The major dental implant books he wrote and patents he obtained are facts and are not an unreferenced, subjective opinion. In 2014 he published his 20 book.
http://www.dentalaegis.com/id/2012/04/pioneers-of-dental-implantology
http://www.nyu.edu/dental/nexus/issues/winter2011/523
http://aaipusa.com/uploads/Dilema__of_Ignorance.pdf
http://www.aaid.com/uploads/cms/documents/2004_1_jan_aaidnews.pdf - page 9 former President, American Academy of Implant Dentistry
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_pg_1?rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Aleonard+linkow&keywords=leonard+linkow&ie=UTF8&qid=1412383551 - some Linkow textbooks are still available on Amazon
DentalSchoolProfessor (
talk)
00:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)DentalSchoolProfessor
It looks like both the above persons have recently expressed interest in uploading more images for this article. This would be great, and if any other improvements in the article occurred at the same time too... Many thanks, Lesion ( talk) 19:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
It's time for this article to have a major revamp. @ Lesion: has given a fantastic summary of what's required in how this article should be. I enjoy the topic, so I'm going to start on the rework. My intent is to follow the structural flow of Hip Replacement, deemphasize markets, training and history and refocus the information on what a layperson would find useful/relevant. If anyone would like to help with the work, please leave me a message (here is best) and we can coordinate the work to be done. Ian Furst ( talk) 19:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Summary: I know a lot of work has gone into this article over the years, but it does not read well for a layperson. There are a lot of industry undertones (about who invented the implant, the best type, how important CT scan guided is) that appear to drive the article flow. I'm going to embrace the WP:BOLD philosophy and start the process. It will take at least a month so please be patient. For infrequent editors, this page has been watched by the Dentistry Project for some time, and labeled as being in need of major changes. If something gets removed, that you believe should be included, please add a note to the Talk Page (e.g. here) so we can all discuss it. The aim is not to drive a particular agenda, but to make the page useful for the general public.
Here's the plan:
1. Rework the intro to make it much more general 2. Reorganize to: -Uses (single teeth, multiple teeth, retain dentures, other uses (anchor for orthodontics) ADD LOTS OF PICS FOR THIS -Modern Process (overview, surgical, prosthetic, long term maintenance) -Risks (failure(short and long-term), infection, bleeding, periimplantitis, structural implant failure, prosthetic failure) -Types (general composition, root form, zygomatic, small diameter) -History 3. Rebuild references (98% of all references in this article are either primary or non-specific (e.g. no page number), this is a major issue). Unless a claim is backed-up by a secondary reference, or it's so vital to the article that the page can't stand without it, I'll remove the fact. 4. Shorten and depersonalize history (review the progression from preprosthetic surgery to subperiosteal implants to osseointegrated implants then modernization of them). Regarding, who invented the implant see point #3 - please add secondary references otherwise there will be a very quick blurb about Branemark and that's it. I'm not an expert on implant history, so I'm happy to learn but we have to get better references.
Regarding MDI's: MDI is a trade name (the generic being small-diameter implants which several suppliers have) and there are no secondary references attached to it. The technique is not unique enough in my mind, nor are there sufficient secondary references, to warrant it's own section. Other than a small section on small-diameter implants in types the sections will be removed
Regarding training: this entire topic has degenerated into a sniping section between GPs, Perio and OMFS. Wikipedia can't be a bully pulpit for the profession. Given that this area is fraught with debate, my vote is we either remove the discussion entirely or include a small blurb (with a secondary reference) that experience correlates to success rates. Dentistry Project group, I'm not sure what your take on the topic is - please add comments.
Please add any thoughts - I'll start the process soon.
Ian Furst ( talk) 12:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC) also note - the article implantology, my view (now) is that it should be merged with this one. it's a watered down version of the existing article. Ian Furst ( talk) 15:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I've added in a new section called uses, currently unreferenced but will be in the coming week or two (once I pull textbooks - I'd like to get away from the primary references). Please be patient. All major changes are made, now the article will be slowly reworked for readability and references. Please add any comments hear as we move thru the page. Thx. Ian Furst ( talk) 00:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to add a section on 'anatomic' implants. This does not fit readily into the existing article, since it's unlike any conventional implant: it's not a screw, it's immediate, and there's no surgery involved. There are less secondary than primary sources, but it's important enough to warrant its own section. Perhaps I can add a new section after 'Risks', section 4: 'Anatomic implants: a new type of implant'? Shall I put it up with pictures and references, or should there be some discussion first? Amir Ansari ( talk) 18:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Also, some comments about the current article: in section 4 'Common types of implants', the first item is 'root form implants'. This is misleading: it probably refers to a tapered screw, which is anything but 'root form'. (A real tooth can have multiple roots - how can a regular screw claim to be 'root form'?) I think this should be changed to 'screw-type implants'. Is it also worth adding 'subperiosteal' and 'blade' implant types? Amir Ansari ( talk) 19:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I've now created the intended sections of the article and am slowly building them up with more text and pictures. Please take a look if you're following the page and let me know if you think any critical issues have been overlooked. Regarding references; until now I've used {almost) exclusively textbooks and Cochrane reviews but I still have some well-established areas that need to be covered. You will see a limited amount of primary research which will all be either large-scale trails, long-term results or meta-analysis. More pics to be added. Ian Furst ( talk) 17:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
No one's addressed the use of the term 'root form', which covers the majority of implant types. It's a misappropriation: screws are clearly not root formed. Implants have a history far beyond Brånemark; root-formed implants (made out of shell) were discovered in archaeological sites in Honduras (I'll add this last fact to the 'History' section of the article). But I think it's important to establish that screws and 'root form' are quite different shapes, and to conflate the two will surely confuse the audience. Amir Ansari ( talk) 13:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Ian: you mention that your 'concern is maintaining the integrity of this article against experimental therapies.' Is there any reason not to have a section entitled 'Experimental therapies'...? Amir Ansari ( talk) 13:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Fractallyte. To expand on the points raised by Ian above Re conflict of interest, if you have some link with this product, it is a good sign that you admitted this. Many editors do not admit a COI. As long as you edit in accordance with Wikipedia's policies like neutral point of view, then there is no issue with you writing about a topic that you are linked with, however often persons are generally advised not to write encyclopedia articles on topics they are very close to, e.g. their own biography page or company's page. See also Conflicts of interest for more info. The kind of sources that are preferred for Wikipedia's medical content are described by this guideline: WP:MEDRS. I understand that your content in this reverted section was based upon primary sources. Ideally need secondary and tertiary sources. We also need to make sure that due weight is given to the parts of this article. Therefore, we should have a Novel techniques section, but it should be in the context of the whole article. We should not go into great detail for techniques that have not yet caught on. Might be an idea to present a draft of your section on this talk page for further discussion? Lesion ( talk) 23:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the term 'root form': "Root form implants are a category of endosteal implants designed to use a vertical column of bone, similar to the root of a natural tooth. Although many names have been applied, the 1988 National Institutes of Health consensus statement on dental implants and the American Academy of Implant Dentistry recognised the term 'root form'." (Contemporary Implant Dentistry, by Carl E. Misch, page 28). Strictly speaking, the term is still inaccurate, but at least now there is an origin for it. Amir Ansari ( talk) 23:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Here is a draft of the section 'Novel treatments' (with Ian's suggestions taken into account): Amir Ansari ( talk) 23:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
A notable advance has been the invention of so-called 'anatomic' zirconia implants. [4] [5] [6] An anatomic dental implant replicates the shape of the patient's natural tooth.
Each implant is individually customized for the patient's anatomy, in a process made possible by the use of modern CAD/CAM technology, and zirconia (a very hard, highly biocompatible white ceramic). [7] [8] This kind of implant typically has a more complex form that includes single and multiple roots, and thus is a genuine 'root form' or 'root analog' implant. [7]
The implant procedure is simple. The bad tooth is carefully extracted, so as not to cause damage to the surrounding bone or gums. Then the anatomic implant is inserted immediately into the empty tooth socket and gently tapped into place. The fit is exact, so there is no need for drilling or surgery. Precisely placed protrusions secure the implant in the softer spongiform bone of the jaw. The implant procedure typically takes less than a minute. Because there is no injury, healing and osseointegration are relatively rapid. The only requirement is that the patient should have relatively healthy bone and gums. [9] [10]
References
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); soft hyphen character in |title=
at position 20 (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
FYI: I've used a series of Cochrane meta-analyses in the article and wanted to be able to give a general initial failure rate and effect of antibiotics. I had some difficulty in interpreting the data so I contacted the statistician for the project (dr. Helen worthington). according to her the data showed a) risk reduction with antibiotics is 67% from 6% to 2% failure rates and b) overall initial failure rate is estimated at 5%. This information will be included with the citation being the 2 Cochrane studies. Ian Furst ( talk) 14:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: TonyTheTiger ( talk · contribs) 17:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
This article needs a lot more work.
Done changed over to T:MI and several pics removed that added little to explainations Ian Furst ( talk) 02:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Please spend some time with WP:WIAGA and WP:MOS. Then consider revising this article and resubmitting. For now, I am failing this aritcle.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC) thank you for the review; will work a lot harder on it Ian Furst ( talk) 17:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I have been asked to reassess this article. It is still failing for lack of WP:ICs from WP:RS in many paragraphs. In a well structured article each paragraph presents a new topic and each should have at least one inline citation. I will not be passing this article. You can renominate it when the editorial work has been completed. Alternatively, you can appeal for a WP:GAR discussion of the version of the article that I failed.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC) DoneThanks tony - at that time was just looking for feedback on the changes to pics - I've now gone thru the entire article for WP:RS in each paragraph - all are secondary or tertiary (many list as PMID's but are Cochrane reviews, systematic reviews). thank you for the feedback. Ian Furst ( talk) 02:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
the page has now had 3 reviews and a common thread is the use of primary references; they have to be removed. Apparently this is a hard standard in MEDMOS. I will be working over the next couple of weeks to rid the article of any primary references. Ian Furst ( talk) 02:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I disagree that Dental Prosthesis redirects to the dental implant page. Following this logic I also disagree that the dental implant + abutment/crown = 'dental prosthesis' (mentioned in the intro). A prosthesis refers to any artificially created device to simulate the appearance and function or enhance a human body part or contour. Therefore a Denture, crown, bridge, fixed or removable bridge/denture, onlay inlay and even a filling/restoration(although maybe going a bit far) with or without an implant can be referred to as a dental prosthesis. Therefore the Dental prosthesis page should refer to a disambiguation page which discusses all of the aforementioned prostheses. Regarding the inclusion into the introduction. Perhaps a dental implant is a prosthesis in itself, but I think it would be more correct to say that the dental implant is a fixture which may enable the connection of a dental prosthesis such as.... Bouncingmolar ( talk) 08:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I think the main articles (at least in the uses section) are not really the main articles for that section. Perhaps a See also section at the end of the article. Also I think blade implants should be included somewhere. I have a book on them somewhere, not that I like to do referencing. I'll leave that up to u guys :) Bouncingmolar ( talk) 06:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: TonyTheTiger ( talk · contribs) 13:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
:thank you Tony - I'm away from internet for next couple of days
Ian Furst (
talk)
17:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
DoneI discussed it at Wikiproject Medicine and we've changed the MEDMOS to read "Medical uses" instead of "Indications". Ian Furst ( talk) 22:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Done I've tried to create a narrative thru the article for someone that only reads the captions. Ian Furst ( talk) 01:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
:
Partly done; started this article before seeing the discussion of problems with cite PMID, replacing cite PMID and cite ISBN but it'll take some time due to number of uses.
Ian Furst (
talk) 00:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC) Done all "cite pmid" and "cite isbn" removed. Time for a beer.
Ian Furst (
talk)
03:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
hi, i am pretty sure that the reference to it handles manual mechanical torque-limiting devices as mentioned in dental torque wrench and not the motor version, but it was a good point to bring up, i had to update the article for it. About the name change to "torque controlled drill" the twisted drill itself is just a material that relays forced brought upon it, the term would be "torque controlled surgical motor", see the update on the article. As the motor is a multi purpose tool it is more prone to deviations in torque than the manual mechanical torque-limiting devices, saying that the latter is more proper to mention as a correct fixation tool than a surgical motor, [1] waiting for a free image :). Mion, on a second thought, maybe mention both ( talk) 00:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Mion, even though the wrench may be more controlled, during the surgical phase it's usually impractical to use ("back in the day", we used to use it on occasion and there's a lot of sideways torque created on the implant which can physically damage thin buccal plates). The drill is technically easier. Many use the wrench for abutment screw torquing however. I'll take a couple of pictures today. Ian Furst ( talk) 13:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I tried to find out when implant dentistry became common, but this article did not tell me. OK, the first experiment with titanium implants was in 1965, but that doesn't really answer my question. By "common", I mean that, if a tooth broke to the point that a crown was no longer feasible, my dentist would list an implant as one of my options. I lost a tooth in the mid 1980's, and my dentist told me to chew around it or on the other side of my mouth, but he did not mention the implant option. So I have the vague impression that implant dentistry really took off in the early 1990's?? And so, to someone my age, it is a new field?? Scribe2u ( talk) 06:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. A reviewer felt that this edit would not improve the article. |
to the "planning" section of the article i would like to add the subsection of "Facial Esthetics and Aging"
Changes in the bones and soft tissues of the face are a normal dynamic phenomenon that continues throughout life. Thus implant placement today should attempt to compensate for future changes. Whereas some changes are similar for both genders, others are not. Three-dimensional changes in the position of teeth and associated hard and soft tissue relative to the static position of implants can introduce compromises. Age-related changes in the maxilla and mandible can create important alterations, the exact extent, vectors and magnitude differ between genders. The vertical and horizontal changes are more pronounced in patients with short or long faces. The challenge for treatment planning is to anticipate potential changes over time. The clinical decisions that must be made prior to treatment are described. The difficulties of implant placement in adult patients have not been addressed adequately. However, with proper planning, the esthetic and functional impact of tissue changes on implant reconstructions can be diminished. The professional challenge of treatment is to develop a time dependent individual protocol that will adapt to the aging face.
Reference for this is: Lifelong Craniofacial Growth and the Implications for Osseointegrated Implants by: Fereidoun Daftary, DDS, MSD/Ramin Mahallati, DDS/Oded Bahat, BDS, MSD, FACD/Richard M. Sullivan, DDS International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants Volume 28 , Issue 1 January/February 2013 PMID 23377062 DOI: 10.11607/jomi.2827 http://www.quintpub.com/journals/omi/abstract.php?article_id=12894#.VT1e2aa22UM
More information will be available from these authors (and, I believe, Dr. Peter Wöhrle) in a book about surgical grafting techniques that is currently in pre-publication. The title of that article is "The 4th Dimension of 3-D Surgical Reconstruction: Bone & Soft Tissue Grafting to Compensate for Dynamic Craniofacial Changes Associated with Aging in Partially Edentulous Patients Influencing Placement Consideration for Osseointegrated Implants"
I am told that knowing Dr. Bahat is a conflict of interest. However, this issue of the skull continuing to grow as we age is an important and especially relevant when the topic is dental implants because they're static. Please help me get this information included. I believe that it is overlooked in the implant community. After a panel in March at the A/O Academy of Osseointegration the speakers were swarmed by attendees -- it was clear to me that this topic should get elevated to the level of general knowledge.
thank you. Vector4 intl ( talk) 21:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
ok i see some issues, like the word patient, and have redrafted. if you continue to believe it's speaking to the wrong audience, could you be more specific, please? fyi: i read and re-read the dental implant article before submitting this change. personally i think the information under 'general considerations' talks about conditions that a doctor should consider NOT what a general reader who may be researching dental implants should consider. my point being is that opinions differ, and i'd appreciate specific suggestions to help publish this update -- which i believe is in the best interest of the public. again, i do know dr bahat. he is a friend. that's not why i'm here. i've seen people react to this topic and that's why i'm here. any way, here is my suggested revision. PLEASE advise.
subtitle: Facial esthetics and aging (to be included under the planning title)
Changes in the bones and soft tissues of the face are normal dynamic phenomenon that continues throughout life. Thus implant placement should attempt to compensate for future changes. Three-dimensional changes in the position of teeth and associated hard and soft tissue relative to the static position of implants can introduce compromises, or aberrations. Age-related changes in the upper and lower jaws can create important alterations, the exact extent, vectors and magnitude differ between men and women. The vertical and horizontal changes are more pronounced in people with short or long faces. The challenge for treatment planning is to anticipate potential changes over time. The clinical decisions that must be made prior to treatment can be identified and discussed with people considering implants. With proper planning, the esthetic and functional impact of tissue changes on implant reconstructions can be diminished. One challenge of treatment is to develop a time dependent individual protocol that will adapt to the aging face.
Lifelong Craniofacial Growth and the Implications for Osseointegrated Implants by: Fereidoun Daftary, DDS, MSD/Ramin Mahallati, DDS/Oded Bahat, BDS, MSD, FACD/Richard M. Sullivan, DDS International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants Volume 28 , Issue 1 January/February 2013 PMID 23377062 PMID: 23377062 DOI: 10.11607/jomi.2827
More information will be available from these authors (and, I believe, Dr. Peter Wöhrle) in a book about surgical grafting techniques that is currently in pre-publication. The title of that article is "The 4th Dimension of 3-D Surgical Reconstruction: Bone & Soft Tissue Grafting to Compensate for Dynamic Craniofacial Changes Associated with Aging in Partially Edentulous Patients Influencing Placement Consideration for Osseointegrated Implants" Vector4 intl ( talk) 00:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dental implant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
I've added a link in the History section to a separate article on root analogue dental implants. Custom implants are the latest in implant technology, so this seems like an appropriate section to write about them. Root analogue implants should be mentioned (or linked to) somewhere in the main 'Dental implant' article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logicwhatelse ( talk • contribs) 16:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Corrected the section title 'Custom made' to 'Root analogue dental implants', and added a link to the main article. As explained before, incorporating this article into the main Dental Implants article is detrimental to the subject matter - clearly demonstrated by the way the article has been cut by various editors. Please don't edit the linked article unless you have knowledge, skills and experience in root analogue dental implants, and start a proper discussion first. Logicwhatelse ( talk) 18:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
File:Spinning root analogue dental implant.gif A robot has removed the GIF. Is the robot right or wrong? I don't know. I include the GIF here for future follow-up purpose. Tony85poon ( talk) 02:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
In the Bulgarian version, I inserted a link to the Peri-implantitis. However, it got reverted. Would a real Bulgarian please help? One of the argument why conventional implant is worse than RAI is that screws cause inflammation. If there is a Bulgarian version of the Peri-implantitis article, of course I would link to the Bulgarian version. But since the Peri-implantitis article is only available in 5 languages (English French German Italian Korean), the next best thing to do is to link to the English version. Without that link, the neutrality of the Bulgarian version is harmed. If we don't give a shit, the Bulgarian readers (who can't read other languages) are less informed about the major side-effect of conventional implant. God bless. Tony85poon ( talk) 23:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Seriously, there was only 1 citation for the Bulgarian version. It links to http://stomcenter.bg/implantology with marketing information ( e.g. (02 85 48 016) and (0879 209-691) phone numbers). I am not saying that the citation must be removed. I am saying that there ought to be a diversity of knowledge, and the Bulgarian readers shouldn't be blind-folded. Tony85poon ( talk) 23:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
The Turkish version got reverted too. The Mongolian version is still good. Tony85poon ( talk) 15:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
デンタル (Dentaru in Romaji)
Tony85poon ( talk) 02:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)インプラント (Inpuranto in Romaji)
Root analogue implants have nothing in common with screw, cylinder or plate implants, and unfortunately, the dental implant article is focused exclusively on these technologies. Merging the two articles would require substantial reorganization of the dental implant article, and I'm sure there would be resistance to this. I think a better idea would be to add a new section with a brief description of root analogue implants, with a link ( /info/en/?search=Template:Main) to the main article on Root Analogue Dental Implants. Logicwhatelse ( talk) 16:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC) I am optimistic with the reorganization of content. That's the beauty of free encyclopedia. Tony85poon ( talk) 04:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
The root analogue implant page describes more than an implant: it describes a method by which an implant can be created that matches the hopeless tooth in form and color. This implant cannot be placed if the root is not present anymore, in contrast to screw type implants. There is no common ground with cylinder and screw type implants because each RAI is custom-made to fit only one patient. The method of placement is also different as there is no surgery required. The only thing in common between cylinder, screw and root analogue implants is that in the end both act as a dental implant. Everything else is completely different. And so they have nothing to do with each other. Therefore, this method merits its own entry, and should not be mixed up with screw type implants. Even the history is completely different and would lead to confusion of the reader. To summarize, with an analogy: it doesn't make sense to merge an article on apples with one on oranges. They're completely different fruits. Logicwhatelse ( talk) 16:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
There is archeological evidence that humans have attempted to replace missing teeth with root form implants for thousands of years. Remains from ancient China (dating 4000 years ago) have carved bamboo pegs, tapped into the bone, to replace lost teeth, and 2000-year-old remains from ancient Egypt have similarly shaped pegs made of precious metals. Some Egyptian mummies were found to have transplanted human teeth, and in other instances, teeth made of ivory.[8](p26)[35][36]
Tooth loss is as old as humanity. Examples from history show that it has always made sense to replace a tooth with an implant that is shaped like a tooth. Wilson Popenoe and his wife in 1931, at a site in Honduras dating back to 600 AD, found the lower mandible of a young Mayan woman, with three missing incisors replaced by pieces of sea shells, shaped to resemble teeth.[37] Bone growth around two of the implants, and the formation of calculus, indicates that they were functional as well as esthetic. The fragment is currently part of the Osteological Collection of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology at Harvard University.[8][35]
In modern times, a tooth replica implant was reported as early as 1969, but the polymethacrylate tooth analogue was encapsulated by soft tissue rather than osseointegrated.[38]
There were previous attempts to add material on root analogue implants. Check the Talk history: Talk:Dental_implant#Under_Construction, Talk:Dental_implant#Construction_Nov_13,_2013_update and Talk:Dental_implant#Proposed_"novel_treatments"_section. It is an entirely different paradigm; merging into the already sizable Dental Implants article would be confusing for readers. Here's a suggested alternative: look at the layout of the article on Engineering#Main_branches_of_engineering. There is a short summary of each branch, and then a link to the relevant article. This keeps the main article lean and readable, and leads the reader into relevant subsections. I propose a similar layout for the Dental Implants article. It would require some reorganization and rewriting, but I think clarity should be the main aim. Logicwhatelse ( talk) 19:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Note I undid your merge @ Tony85poon: because it it gave WP:UNDUE prominence to the Root analogue dental implant technique, and was also done during both an ongoing merge discussion and an AfD. I suggesting waiting until both disucssions are closed before attempting any merge actions.-- Pontificalibus 13:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose merge. COmpletely different topic. This is not just a yet another type of implant: this is a considerably different class of implants: the one not based on screws, and the article is large. We do not merge large articles; just the opposite: we split them.
Staszek Lem (
talk)
20:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Article | Size | |
---|---|---|
List of 2017 albums | 545,842 bytes | |
Breast implant | 98,862 bytes | |
Prosthesis | 94,450 bytes | |
After merge | 92,258 bytes | |
Before merge | 79,033 bytes | |
Brain implant | 39,768 bytes |
Should Dental Implant and Root Analogue Dental Implant be merged altogether? Tony85poon ( talk) 00:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC) I have made three improvements and summarize here so everyone can pickup:
A Message to the Koreans: kindly review ko:덴탈임플란트 after expanding with RAI content. Would a Russian offer to help please? The Russian counter-page was reverted. Tony85poon ( talk) 01:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
What exactly is pre-operational CT/DVT scan? I know CT means CAT scan, but DVT usually means deep vein thrombosis which should not have relevance with dentistry, or is there? Tony85poon ( talk) 07:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)