Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology
Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology
Home | About JISP | Search | Accepted articles | Online Early | Current Issue | Archives | Instructions | SubmissionSubscribeLogin 
Users Online: 635  Home Print this page Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font sizeWide layoutNarrow layoutFull screen layout


 
   Table of Contents    
PRESIDENTíS MESSAGE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 25  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 3-4  

Implantology from a periodontist's perspective


Department of Periodontoloy, D.A.V Dental College, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana, India

Date of Web Publication7-Jan-2021

Correspondence Address:
Nymphea Pandit
Department of Periodontoloy, D.A.V Dental College, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jisp.jisp_795_20

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Pandit N. Implantology from a periodontist's perspective. J Indian Soc Periodontol 2021;25:3-4

How to cite this URL:
Pandit N. Implantology from a periodontist's perspective. J Indian Soc Periodontol [serial online] 2021 [cited 2021 Jul 30];25:3-4. Available from: https://www.jisponline.com/text.asp?2021/25/1/3/306322




Greetings to my fellow ISPians!

Implantology has revolutionised the modern dentistry. Mayans long back in 600 AD used sea shells as the implants for the missing teeth. And it took us around 1400 years to devise a similar procedure. When Implants were first introduced to dentistry in 1960, it was regarded as a panacea for all types of edentulous problems with 100% success. Some of the longitudinal studies carried over at that time had satisfactory results. Such an impressive outcome was possible because of the landmark discovery of ossteointegration, by Per Ingvar Branemark. However, when the duration of the evaluation increased to 10 years or more, the success rate started falling with the result that a recent review in 2017 has reported a success rate of only 91%.[1] This decrease in the success rate is also related to the fact that most of the studies related to the long term evaluation of implants have reported the survival rate. As Survival rate is easier to analyse because it just concentrates on the number of implants in the mouth at different time intervals irrespective of their condition. Patients are usually concerned about the esthetics and function whereas we as dental professionals are concerned about the biological and mechanical stability and facilitation of oral hygiene for successful functioning. Albrektsson et al.[2] added no mobility, no irreversible symptoms and no radiolucency and less than 0.2 mm bone loss annually to the list of success criteria. Misch.[3] and later on the International Congress of Oral Implantologists' Pisa Consensus Conference in 2007 expanded this list to include differences between compromised survival and satisfactory survival.

The most common ailments that have been reported to develop around the Peri-implant tissues are the Mucositis and Periimplantitis which have contributed to the above mentioned decrease in the survival rate of Implants.

As Periodontists, we have been trying to implore the various factors which are central to the susceptibility of individuals to Periodontitis as well as Peri-implant Mucositis and Periimplantitis. Present research focuses on the fact that apart from the microbial aspect, we need to look at genetic susceptibility as well as the contribution if any from the systemic diseases. We are aware that the systemic diseases can be partially modified to have a beneficial effect on the management of these chronic illnesses, and there is very little that can be changed from the genetic aspect though. As Periodontists, we have a better understanding of the bone loss around natural teeth and Implants and regular recalls shall go a long way to ascertain perfectly functioning implants for a lifetime of patients.

So, it is our prime responsibility as periodontitis to fully evaluate the systemic medical as well as the local aspects before we plan to place implants. If the tooth can be salvaged, we have every moral responsibility to explore the latest techniques and materials to do so. There is lot of literature related to the maintenance of teeth with fair to poor prognosis with appropriate treatment planning and frequent recall appointments.



 
   References Top

1.
De Angelis F, Papi P, Mencio F, Rosella D, Di Carlo S, Pompa G. Implant survival and success rates in patients with risk factors: Results from a long-term retrospective study with a 10 to 18 years follow-up February 2017. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2020;21:433-7.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: A review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986;1:11-25.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Misch CE, editor. Implant success or failure: Clinical assessment in implant dentistry. In: Contemporary Implant Dentistry. St. Louis: Mosby; 1993. p. 33-66.  Back to cited text no. 3
    




 

Top
   
 
  Search
 
  
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1631    
    Printed16    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded51    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal