Advances in dentistry within the last ten years or so have led to incredible technological improvements. Dental implants have been the treatment of choice to replace lost or missing teeth, and when done under proper surgical technique, achievement rates have surpassed 95%. When the concept of osseointegration or fusing titanium with bone was introduced to the dental area in the early 60s by an orthopaedic surgeon known as P.I. Branemark, the application of the concept was adapted to dental use; implementing the procedure, nevertheless, into a dental setting was viewed as risky and unpredictable. Success rates in this point in time rarely approached 55-60%, and lots of clinicians believed that their introduction into an individual’s treatment program may be too early for predictable success of a particular prosthesis. To enhance achievement rates, alterations in the plan of the dental implant surface have been introduced without audio, clinical evidence to copy manufacturer’s claims of improved success prices. Through years of empirical experimentation, a titanium dental implant has been designed that seemed much like that of a natural tooth root.
Some 40 decades later, the technology inside the dental implant field has facilitated their colloquial usage among general dentists and specialists. When the market for Implant dentar pret exploded more than a decade ago, many implant producers decided to alter the topographical surface of the implant housing with unsubstantiated promises of enhanced success rates to win market share over the major implant companies that currently hold 85-95percent of US dental implant sales.
Unfortunately, there’s an enormous amount of poorly written research that’s being introduced to the dental literature with false claims of improved success prices. In many cases, implant manufacturers have made adjustments to the design of their implant because of enhanced success rates were seen with a rival implant that has the proper research and clinical documentation. With the dental implant industry growing each year, this problem will never stop to exist.
As a possible implant candidate, There Are Lots of things you should know about this industry Before continuing with treatment:
FACT: Doctors don’t need formal surgical practice on people to place dental implants.
In reality, one implant manufacturer, in particular, holds educational seminars for doctors wanting to place dental implants over the course of one weekend. That’s right, in only 2 days, doctors are given a surgical practice certification which claims that they have formal training in operative implant dentistry and therefore may put dental implants in a human subject. Sad to say, the course doesn’t train these physicians on human subjects, instead, on plastic jawbones.
FACT: The US government doesn’t need FDA approval to get a dental implant fixture to be marketed to the professional community.
The US government has a governing body that oversees biomedical devices and their possible implementation to the dental and medical community. If, for example, a dental implant meets certain criteria required for surgical placement to the human body according to prior submissions by other producers which have analyzed the device, then the governing body will grant 510K clearance to the implant maker. 510K clearance enables dental implant manufacturers (along with other biomedical device manufacturers) to advertise their device with no need for prior animal or human testing! If a different biomedical device has been formally introduced with similar intent, then the literature to the first product can be used to formalize 510K clearance.
FACT: So many implants, so little time
The rivalry for the dental implant market is fierce, and after patents have expired on analyzed devices proven to be suitable for human use, some implant manufacturers will duplicate the design of those devices. These implants are called clones and are marketed to dentists in a significantly reduced cost. In fact, these businesses use literature provided by the implant manufacturer from whom they are copying!
FACT: Implant manufacturers are introducing new designs to the market with false claims
To keep up with new implant manufacturers that are having better overall success rates, some companies copy a particular portion of their competitor’s implant and assert that results are similar with the recently added portion. Conceptually that is logical, but in most cases, a combination of design features are responsible for a few implant manufacturers’ improved success prices. By introducing a concept that has shown to improve success rates in a different augmentation system (albeit with little or no clinical documentation), augmentation manufacturers can thereby retain their current clientele, and therefore physicians need not worry about needing to buy another implant system.
FACT: Clone companies always falter and lose market share, leading to withdrawal from the marketplace.
Dental implants are alloys and alloys fatigue. A good number of implant manufacturers who have cloned other systems using decent clinical documentation have gone bankrupt and consequently, can no more provide their merchandise to the dental profession. In many cases when elements such as these implant systems fail, it is quite hard or nearly impossible to buy replacement parts. This may leave the patient who has a cloned implant positioned in their jaw with the unfortunate position of being unable to have it restored.
FACT: The US FDA does not call for dentists to notify their patients of the type of dental implant being placed.
Sadly, this amount is growing, and at another 10-20 years when augmentation components are necessary, it will be very difficult for dentists to identify the type of implant that’s been placed.