Background: Clinicians need quality research data to decide which dental implant should be selected for patient treatment. Aim(s)/objective(s): To present the scientific evidence for claims of relationship between characteristics of dental implants and clinical performance . Study design: Systematic search of promotional material and Internet sites to find claims of implant superiority related to specific characteristics of the implant, and of the dental research literature to find scientific support for the claims. Main outcome measures: Critical appraisal of the research documentation to establish the scientific external and internal validity as a basis for the likelihood of reported treatment outcomes as a function of implant characteristics. Results: More than 220 implant brands have been identified , produced by about 80 manufacturers. The implants are made from different materials, undergo different surface treatments and come in different shapes, lengths , widths and forms . The dentist can in theory choose among more than 2,000 implants in a given patient treatment situation . Implants made from titanium and titanium alloys appear to perform well clinically in properly surgically prepared bone, regardless of small variations of shapes and forms . Various surface treatments are currently being developed to improve the capacity of a more rapid anchorage of the implant into bone . A substantial number of claims made by different manufacturers on alleged superiority due to design characteristics are not based on sound and longterm clinical scientific research. Implants are , in some parts of the world, manufactured and sold with no demonstration of adherence to any international standards . Conclusions: The scientific literature does not provide any clear directives to claims of alleged benefits of specific morphological characteristics of dental implants.

No abstract

At the annual congresses of the Norwegian Dental Association in 1986 and 1987 surveys were conducted to assess the significance of potential sources of mercury exposure. Morning urine samples and questionnaires were collected from 672 participants in 1986 and 273 participants in 1987. The mean values of the urinary mercury excretion were 39 nmol/L (SD = 29) in 1986, and 43 nmol/L (SD = 36) in 1987. The excretion values were correlated to the answers on questionnaires supplied from each participant. The data was analyzed using ANOVA, multiple classification analyses, and Pearson correlation. The correlations between environment and practice characteristics and the mercury excretion values reconfirm in general results from previous investigations. In addition, the data indicate that urinary mercury excretion may be gender dependent and that the restorative status of the participants contribute to the daily mercury exposure. Moreover, the excretion correlates not only to the number of placed restorations per week, but also to the number of polished and replaced amalgam restorations per week. Participants working in environments with wooden floors had significantly higher mean mercury values than other dental personnel. Elevated mercury values were also observed for participants working in clinics with installed amalgam separators or other filtering devices. The possibility that the storage of collected scrap amalgam and mercury from the filtering devices increases the mercury vapor in the work environment warrants further investigation.

No abstract

No abstract