Investigational Clinical Research in Implant Dentistry

Effectiveness of Implant Therapy Analyzed in a Swedish Population

“…Thus, in contrast to previous publications on so-called convenience patient samples, the present study sample constitutes a true cohort. The evaluation also applies to everyday clinical practice and provides data on effectiveness rather than efficacy (Berglundh and Giannobile 2013).…”

“…The documentation is also predominantly based on assessments made in small, selected patient groups (i.e., so-called convenience samples) (Tomasi and Derks 2012), and treatment was in most cases performed by clinicians in specialist or university clinical settings. Thus, treatment outcomes were mainly assessed in efficacy evaluations rather than appraisals of effectiveness (Berglundh and Giannobile 2013). It is important to adapt to recommendations on improvement of reporting on treatment outcomes (Tonetti and Palmer 2012) and to address the need for randomly selected and appropriately sized patient groups treated by different categories of clinicians.…”

Patient‐reported outcomes of dental implant therapy in a large randomly selected sample

“…() represented so‐called convenient samples of small sizes, the material in the current study included more than 3800 randomly selected patients who, in addition, were treated in varying clinical settings and by a multitude of clinicians. It may be suggested that the present study sample not only constitutes a true cohort (Tonetti & Palmer ) but also applies to everyday clinical practice, that is, an evaluation of effectiveness rather than efficacy (Berglundh & Giannobile ).…”

“…While the patients in the studies by Pjetursson et al (2005) and Simonis et al (2010) represented so-called convenient samples of small sizes, the material in the current study included more than 3800 randomly selected patients who, in addition, were treated in varying clinical settings and by a multitude of clinicians. It may be suggested that the present study sample not only constitutes a true cohort (Tonetti & Palmer 2012) but also applies to everyday clinical practice, that is, an evaluation of effectiveness rather than efficacy (Berglundh & Giannobile 2013). Cune et al (1995Cune et al ( , 1997 selected over 5000 Dutch patients provided with implant-supported restorative therapy from an insurance database.…”

Molecular Approaches to Functionalization of Dental Implant Surfaces

“…The idea is to use them in a controlled placement on the implant" surface of active molecules with biological effect -adhesion, growth factors, etc., which allows the quickest possible osteogenesis initialization throughout the implant surface. Making the surface of the predefined useful health properties (functionalization) is achieved in this case by molecular transplantation [3,52]. This review is devoted to observe the advantages and unresolved problems of this approach.…”