Changes in the prosthodontic literature 1966 to 2042.
(17/84)
PURPOSE: To describe the growth and content of the prosthodontic literature over the last 4 decades, to make a prognosis on its probable development in the coming 4 decades and to discuss changes in the content of the International Journal of Prosthodontics (IJP) from its start in 1988 to 2004. METHODS: MEDLINE was searched for articles on prosthodontics published between 1966 and April 2004. All volumes of IJP were examined with respect to type, subject area and geographic origin of articles. RESULTS: Using the term "prosthodontics," the MEDLINE search produced 66,600 hits. The proportion of clinical studies increased from 1% during the first 10-year period to 13% since 2001. Articles on removable dentures decreased during the period reviewed, whereas those on implant prosthodontics increased. Randomized controlled trials were rare and often of inadequate quality. Literature reviews have become popular, but many do not follow current guidelines for systematic reviews. A marked change in geographic origin of articles in IJP has occurred, with a decrease in material from North America and an increase in that from Europe and Asia. The Internet and open-access publishing will probably have a great impact on the future development of the prosthodontic literature. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial changes have occurred in the prosthodontic literature between 1966 and 2004, and they can be expected to continue with the rapid development of information technology and increased use of the Internet. (+info)
Prosthodontics 1966-2042: changes in prosthodontic education, past and future.
(18/84)
Past changes in prosthodontic education have been influenced by educators" understanding of learning, the physical plants in which they teach and the evolution of the profession (both clinically and politically). A 1968 survey illustrates an emphasis on materials and techniques, and the literature of the day respected "expert" opinion. Although the need for prosthodontics was expected to decline with the promotion of preventive measures, it is actually increasing with the aging population. Organizational support for defining the specialty of prosthodontics to encompass a broad spectrum of dental restorations and related care helped develop commitment to improved research and education. Instrumental in these improvements were faculty with advanced education in the discipline, better physical plants in which to work and an understanding of the theories of teaching and learning. Faculty will continue to be innovative and adopt new approaches such as evidence-based dentistry and problem-based learning. However, the lure of research funding and institutional expectations will probably influence how faculty spend their time and energy. Prosthodontic education will continue to evolve, but it will be influenced by its institutional and professional environments. (+info)
The changing relations between the allied disciplines.
(19/84)
Relations between the allied disciplines of prosthodontics, oral and maxillofacial surgery and periodontics over the last 30 years are reviewed, together with the development of clinical activity progressing from the preosseointegration era to the present day. New developments are foreseen in the coming 30 years. (+info)
Prosthodontic research: breaking traditional barriers.
(20/84)
There is considerable concern among leaders in both academia and the prosthodontic profession about the vitality of prosthodontic research and the discipline in general. Many feel that prosthodontics should be focused more on issues of societal significance. In addition, patient-oriented research is becoming more difficult to support within the current climate of ever-lower priority for discipline-based research.A break with traditional lines of enquiry is required, which will entail a corresponding break with established departmental boundaries, to gain access to a multiplicity of complementary skills. Several themes will be crucial in future prosthodontic research: clinical decision making, including health economics; materials science and host response at the implant interface; biocompatibility, functional properties and serviceability of prosthodontic materials; and function and dysfunction of the masticatory system. These themes are at the core of future projects that will address quality-of-life issues related to tooth loss. Prosthodontic researchers will have to be far more aggressive in developing synergistic collaborative arrangements, to align prosthodontic research with the major issues of the day, such as aging of the population, health disparities and access to preventive strategies. Through these collaborations, prosthodontics will remain a flagship discipline within dentistry, and its practitioners will be engaged in the major issues of health care. (+info)
Quantitative evaluation of axial wall taper in prepared artificial teeth.
(21/84)
The purpose of this study was to quantitatively evaluate the axial wall taper of prepared artificial teeth using a non-contact three-dimensional shape measuring system. A total of 54 artificial teeth prepared by pre-clinical dental students for complete cast restorations were evaluated. For quantitative analysis, five cross sections were computer-graphically placed perpendicularly to the z-axis. The surface coordinate values (x, y, z) of each cross section were converted into polar coordinate values (r, theta), which were then graphically rendered to a two-dimensional plane. At four points, each 90 degrees from the distal center point of the cross section, the axial wall taper was quantitatively calculated using a formula based on the differences in radius between the highest and lowest positions of the cross sections of the prepared tooth. The average calculated taper was 5.8 degrees in the distal region, 21.7 degrees in the buccal region, 14.9 degrees in the mesial region and 12.5 degrees in the lingual region. These results suggest that the axial wall taper of prepared teeth can be quantitatively evaluated using this measuring system. (+info)
Restoration of traumatized anterior teeth by interdisciplinary approach: report of three cases.
(22/84)
These cases had been discussed having massive coronal fracture, rotation and intrusion of teeth. In case one, both the central incisors, i.e. 11 and 21 were fractured only one-third of tooth material was remaining. In case two, 21 was fractured and intruded. In case three, 12 and 21 were avulsed and 11 was rotated and intruded. These cases were successfully treated by multidisciplinary approach. Fractured crown with periapical pathology were endodontically treated and then rotated and intruded teeth were repositioned by removable or fixed orthodontic appliance. Subsequent to endodontic and orthodontic treatment prosthodontic rehabilitation was done. (+info)
Scope of practice comparison: a tool for curriculum decision making.
(23/84)
The proportion of claims filed for specific dental procedures (ADA codes # 05110, 05120, 03320, 03330, 04260, 02150) between January 1, 2000 and June 30, 2004 by Texas general practitioners participating in a preferred provider network was compared to the proportion of these procedures performed by students graduating from the three Texas dental schools during the same period. Analysis of the data revealed that Texas dental students provide class two amalgam restorations in permanent teeth (02150) at approximately the same frequency as Texas general practitioners. Both groups provide periodontal osseous surgery (04260) at an extremely low frequency (<0.02% of total procedures). Bicuspid endodontic procedures (03320) were performed at a slightly higher frequency by students (0.43% of all procedures) than by general practitioners (0.36% of all procedures), and molar endodontic procedures (03330) were performed at a slightly higher frequency by general practitioners (0.65%) than by students (0.36%). Significant discrepancies between the groups were noted for the two complete denture procedures (05110, 05120). Students provided these procedures at frequencies fifteen times (05110) and twenty-five times (05120) greater than general practitioners. Dental schools should use data provided by scope of practice analyses to help determine an appropriate breadth and depth for their educational programs. (+info)
Teaching implant dentistry in the predoctoral curriculum: a report from the ADEA Implant Workshop's survey of deans.
(24/84)
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. (+info)