Five-year survival rates for implants placed using digitally-designed static surgical guides : a systematic review

Digitally-designed static surgical guides provide an acceptable level of accuracy and predictability for the placement of dental implants. However, to our knowledge, few published studies have compared the long-term survival of implants placed in this way with those placed using other methods. A systematic search of electronic databases using a population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) framework was conducted of Medline and EMBASE, as well as grey literature and hand searches, to obtain all relevant work pertaining to the survival of dental implants placed by guided surgery. The studies were required to have at least 10 patients with a follow up of at least five years. A total of 621 titles were screened. Four studies met the inclusion criteria for quantitative analysis, and they all reported the exclusive use of Nobel Biocare implants and the NobelGuide system (Nobel Biocare Services). Cumulative survival rates ranged from 94.5% to 100% over five years. The survival rates of implants placed using digitally-designed static surgical guides are comparable to the estimated overall survival rate (95.6% over five years), despite the complex nature of the treatments done with guided surgery. Clinicians who do these operations should, however, have the experience and ability to revert to conventional freehand techniques if complications arise. [Abstract copyright: Copyright © 2019 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Dentists' perceptions of smart phone use in the clinical environment

Objective To determine the use of smart phones in clinical practice and to determine the perceived impact on patient safety. Study design A closed questionnaire survey with an exploratory open question. Setting, materials and methods A questionnaire was sent to a sample of 216 delegates that have attended courses provided by an education provider in the North West of England between 2015–2017. Results There was a response rate of 49.5% which represented 107 returned questionnaires. The mean year of qualification is 2008. Of the respondents,105 were general dental practitioners, and two were hospital based dentists. Of the respondents, 82.2% had their smart phone in surgery, and of these 88% had the smart phone on silent, with the respondents on average receiving three texts, four emails and one call each session. Of the respondents, 40.9% were not aware that they received a text, 53.4% an email, and 37.5% a telephone call. Whilst 50.1% responded, in some way, to a text, 46.6% to an email and 62.5% to a telephone call. Of the respondents, 61.7% think that having a phone in the surgery is a distraction. Of the respondents, 20.7% stated that smart phones should not be allowed in the surgery under any circumstance, whilst 24.1% stated that they should be allowed if on silent and out of view, and 16.4% allowed their use but not in front of patients. Conclusions Eighty-eight percent of respondents had their smart phone with them in the surgery, with 61.7% reporting it to be a distraction from their clinical duties. It is our recommendation that each clinic has a protocol or policy that governs the use of smart phones focusing on patient safety

Current trends and status of continuing professional development in implant dentistry in Europe

link_to_OA_fulltex