Comparison of 6-mm and 11-mm dental implants in the posterior region supporting fixed dental prostheses:5-year results of an open multicenter randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this multicenter, randomized controlled trial was to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of 6-mm or 11-mm implants, placed in the posterior maxilla and mandible, during a 5-year follow-up period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-five patients with adequate bone height for 11-mm implants, were randomly allocated to a 6-mm group (test group with short implants) or an 11-mm group (control group with standard-length implants). Two or three implants of the same length were placed in each patient and after 6 weeks loaded with a splinted provisional restoration. This was followed by definitive splinted restoration 6 months after implant placement. Clinical and radiographic parameters, including the occurrence of complications were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 49 patients were enrolled to receive 6-mm implants (n = 108) and 46 patients to receive 11-mm implants (n = 101). Three implants (two of 6 mm and one of 11 mm in length) were lost before loading and one 6-mm implant after 15 months of function, and one 11-mm implant was lost during the first year of function. The 5-year survival rates were 96.0% and 98.9% in the 6-mm and 11-mm group, respectively. The mean marginal bone level changes 5 years post-loading were 0.01 ± 0.45 mm (bone gain) in the 6-mm group and -0.12 ± 0.93 mm (bone loss) in the 11-mm group (p = .7670). Clinical parameters, including plaque, bleeding on probing and pocket probing depth were not significantly different between the groups, and also technical complications were low. CONCLUSION: The clinical and radiographic outcomes of 6-mm short and 11-mm standard-length implants were not different during a 5-year evaluation period

Retention and recruitment of general dentists in an adjunct teaching model—A pilot study

<div><p>Purpose/Objectives</p><p>Retention and recruitment of part time clinical adjunct faculty members in dental education is becoming increasingly difficult as dental schools come to rely on this workforce for their increased involvement in clinical education. Contributing factors include full time faculty shortage, aging workforce, practice and student debt, practice and family commitments, and financial compensation. This study attempts to ascertain barriers to teaching so appropriate strategies can be formulated to address this issue.</p><p>Methods</p><p>In the spring of 2016 an email survey was sent to current and former adjunct faculty members to ascertain demographics and retention and recruitment strategies. Descriptive analyses were completed for all variables in the sample.</p><p>Results</p><p>Twenty nine of forty six subjects responded to the survey with a response rate of 63%. Subjects over the age of sixty comprised 55% with only 17% being under the age of forty five. Overall family and practice commitments along with compensation were the primary barriers to teaching part time. For new dentists, student loan debt was the primary barrier to teaching. Travel to teach was also a barrier as 70% of respondents drove 200 miles or less to the dental school.</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>The study demonstrated that the aging part time work force is a great concern and new part time clinical adjunct faculty members must be recruited. Barriers to recruitment and retention of faculty must be considered and addressed to sustain this teaching model.</p></div

Benefits.

<p>Benefits.</p

Barriers and motivators to teaching.

<p>Barriers and motivators to teaching.</p

Demographics.

<p>Demographics.</p