Future therapeutic directions for management of the edentulous predicament
Identifieur interne : 003761 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 003760; suivant : 003762Future therapeutic directions for management of the edentulous predicament
Auteurs : Patrick J. HenrySource :
- The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry [ 0022-3913 ] ; 1998.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Austr dent, Best interests, Bone quality, Cigarette smoking, Commodity development interests, Component cost, Component costs, Cumulative success rate, Dent, Dental implants, Dental research community, Dentistry, Denture, Edentulous, Edentulous mandible, Edentulous predicament, Editorial council, Educational perspectives, Financial resources, Future direction, Future directions, General dentists, Implant, Implant dentistry, Implant placement, Implant prosthodontics, Implant systems, Individual implants, Mandible, Mandibular, Mandibular prostheses, Many implants, Maxilla, Maxillary, Maxillofac, Molecular biology, Multicenter, Optimized management, Oral maxillofac implants, Osseointegrated, Osseointegrated implants, Osseointegration, Overdenture, Overdentures, Partial dentures, Product information, Prospective multicenter study, Prosthesis, Prosthet dent, Prosthetic, Prosthetic dentistry, Prosthetic dentistry henry, Prosthodontic, Prosthodontic educators, Prosthodontics, Prosthodontist, Prosthodontists need, Removable, Removable prostheses, Removable prosthesis, Research funding, Residual ridge structure, Success rate, Success rates, Toronto conference, Treatment concepts, Treatment planning, West perth.
- Teeft :
- Austr dent, Best interests, Bone quality, Cigarette smoking, Commodity development interests, Component cost, Component costs, Cumulative success rate, Dent, Dental implants, Dental research community, Dentistry, Denture, Edentulous, Edentulous mandible, Edentulous predicament, Editorial council, Educational perspectives, Financial resources, Future direction, Future directions, General dentists, Implant, Implant dentistry, Implant placement, Implant prosthodontics, Implant systems, Individual implants, Mandible, Mandibular, Mandibular prostheses, Many implants, Maxilla, Maxillary, Maxillofac, Molecular biology, Multicenter, Optimized management, Oral maxillofac implants, Osseointegrated, Osseointegrated implants, Osseointegration, Overdenture, Overdentures, Partial dentures, Product information, Prospective multicenter study, Prosthesis, Prosthet dent, Prosthetic, Prosthetic dentistry, Prosthetic dentistry henry, Prosthodontic, Prosthodontic educators, Prosthodontics, Prosthodontist, Prosthodontists need, Removable, Removable prostheses, Removable prosthesis, Research funding, Residual ridge structure, Success rate, Success rates, Toronto conference, Treatment concepts, Treatment planning, West perth.
Abstract
Abstract: The 1982 Toronto Conference on Tissue-Integrated Prostheses introduced the technique of osseointegration to the academic dental community. Subsequently, prosthodontists have played a leading role in the educational and clinical development of implant-supported fixed and removable prostheses for the treatment of the edentulous jaw. The success rates of treatment in the mandible have been replicated in many parts of the world and results are rewarding when compared with conventional complete denture therapy. Unfortunately, treatment results in the maxilla do not parallel those in the mandible and the shortfall requires the development of alternative strategies in diagnosis, treatment planning, surgery, and prosthetic management. As these treatment concepts become an everyday practice reality, osseointegrated implants have predictably found their way into the curriculum of all dental specialties. However, in many localities, the role of the prosthodontist in continuing education and research and development has become diluted as other areas of dentistry realize the enormous potential for treatment with osseointegrated implants. Accordingly, prosthodontists need to reevaluate their clinical mind-set if the specialty is to provide a lead role in future therapeutic endeavors. (J Prosthet Dent 1998;79:100-6.)
Url:
DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70201-X
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:7075198051F2E3DC30F4CDD4D247AE020B003835Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Future therapeutic directions for management of the edentulous predicament</title><author><name sortKey="Henry, Patrick J" sort="Henry, Patrick J" uniqKey="Henry P" first="Patrick J." last="Henry">Patrick J. Henry</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, West Perth, Australia</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:7075198051F2E3DC30F4CDD4D247AE020B003835</idno><date when="1998" year="1998">1998</date><idno type="doi">10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70201-X</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/7075198051F2E3DC30F4CDD4D247AE020B003835/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">003761</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">003761</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Future therapeutic directions for management of the edentulous predicament</title><author><name sortKey="Henry, Patrick J" sort="Henry, Patrick J" uniqKey="Henry P" first="Patrick J." last="Henry">Patrick J. Henry</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, West Perth, Australia</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">YMPR</title><idno type="ISSN">0022-3913</idno><imprint><publisher>ELSEVIER</publisher><date type="published" when="1998">1998</date><biblScope unit="volume">79</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="100">100</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="106">106</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0022-3913</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0022-3913</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Austr dent</term><term>Best interests</term><term>Bone quality</term><term>Cigarette smoking</term><term>Commodity development interests</term><term>Component cost</term><term>Component costs</term><term>Cumulative success rate</term><term>Dent</term><term>Dental implants</term><term>Dental research community</term><term>Dentistry</term><term>Denture</term><term>Edentulous</term><term>Edentulous mandible</term><term>Edentulous predicament</term><term>Editorial council</term><term>Educational perspectives</term><term>Financial resources</term><term>Future direction</term><term>Future directions</term><term>General dentists</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant dentistry</term><term>Implant placement</term><term>Implant prosthodontics</term><term>Implant systems</term><term>Individual implants</term><term>Mandible</term><term>Mandibular</term><term>Mandibular prostheses</term><term>Many implants</term><term>Maxilla</term><term>Maxillary</term><term>Maxillofac</term><term>Molecular biology</term><term>Multicenter</term><term>Optimized management</term><term>Oral maxillofac implants</term><term>Osseointegrated</term><term>Osseointegrated implants</term><term>Osseointegration</term><term>Overdenture</term><term>Overdentures</term><term>Partial dentures</term><term>Product information</term><term>Prospective multicenter study</term><term>Prosthesis</term><term>Prosthet dent</term><term>Prosthetic</term><term>Prosthetic dentistry</term><term>Prosthetic dentistry henry</term><term>Prosthodontic</term><term>Prosthodontic educators</term><term>Prosthodontics</term><term>Prosthodontist</term><term>Prosthodontists need</term><term>Removable</term><term>Removable prostheses</term><term>Removable prosthesis</term><term>Research funding</term><term>Residual ridge structure</term><term>Success rate</term><term>Success rates</term><term>Toronto conference</term><term>Treatment concepts</term><term>Treatment planning</term><term>West perth</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Austr dent</term><term>Best interests</term><term>Bone quality</term><term>Cigarette smoking</term><term>Commodity development interests</term><term>Component cost</term><term>Component costs</term><term>Cumulative success rate</term><term>Dent</term><term>Dental implants</term><term>Dental research community</term><term>Dentistry</term><term>Denture</term><term>Edentulous</term><term>Edentulous mandible</term><term>Edentulous predicament</term><term>Editorial council</term><term>Educational perspectives</term><term>Financial resources</term><term>Future direction</term><term>Future directions</term><term>General dentists</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant dentistry</term><term>Implant placement</term><term>Implant prosthodontics</term><term>Implant systems</term><term>Individual implants</term><term>Mandible</term><term>Mandibular</term><term>Mandibular prostheses</term><term>Many implants</term><term>Maxilla</term><term>Maxillary</term><term>Maxillofac</term><term>Molecular biology</term><term>Multicenter</term><term>Optimized management</term><term>Oral maxillofac implants</term><term>Osseointegrated</term><term>Osseointegrated implants</term><term>Osseointegration</term><term>Overdenture</term><term>Overdentures</term><term>Partial dentures</term><term>Product information</term><term>Prospective multicenter study</term><term>Prosthesis</term><term>Prosthet dent</term><term>Prosthetic</term><term>Prosthetic dentistry</term><term>Prosthetic dentistry henry</term><term>Prosthodontic</term><term>Prosthodontic educators</term><term>Prosthodontics</term><term>Prosthodontist</term><term>Prosthodontists need</term><term>Removable</term><term>Removable prostheses</term><term>Removable prosthesis</term><term>Research funding</term><term>Residual ridge structure</term><term>Success rate</term><term>Success rates</term><term>Toronto conference</term><term>Treatment concepts</term><term>Treatment planning</term><term>West perth</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Abstract: The 1982 Toronto Conference on Tissue-Integrated Prostheses introduced the technique of osseointegration to the academic dental community. Subsequently, prosthodontists have played a leading role in the educational and clinical development of implant-supported fixed and removable prostheses for the treatment of the edentulous jaw. The success rates of treatment in the mandible have been replicated in many parts of the world and results are rewarding when compared with conventional complete denture therapy. Unfortunately, treatment results in the maxilla do not parallel those in the mandible and the shortfall requires the development of alternative strategies in diagnosis, treatment planning, surgery, and prosthetic management. As these treatment concepts become an everyday practice reality, osseointegrated implants have predictably found their way into the curriculum of all dental specialties. However, in many localities, the role of the prosthodontist in continuing education and research and development has become diluted as other areas of dentistry realize the enormous potential for treatment with osseointegrated implants. Accordingly, prosthodontists need to reevaluate their clinical mind-set if the specialty is to provide a lead role in future therapeutic endeavors. (J Prosthet Dent 1998;79:100-6.)</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>elsevier</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>implant</json:string><json:string>prosthesis</json:string><json:string>prosthodontist</json:string><json:string>mandible</json:string><json:string>denture</json:string><json:string>prosthetic</json:string><json:string>prosthodontic</json:string><json:string>osseointegrated</json:string><json:string>maxilla</json:string><json:string>osseointegrated implants</json:string><json:string>success rates</json:string><json:string>mandibular</json:string><json:string>multicenter</json:string><json:string>prosthodontics</json:string><json:string>edentulous</json:string><json:string>maxillofac</json:string><json:string>oral maxillofac implants</json:string><json:string>overdenture</json:string><json:string>dentistry</json:string><json:string>overdentures</json:string><json:string>maxillary</json:string><json:string>osseointegration</json:string><json:string>edentulous predicament</json:string><json:string>general dentists</json:string><json:string>removable</json:string><json:string>prosthetic dentistry</json:string><json:string>edentulous mandible</json:string><json:string>success rate</json:string><json:string>partial dentures</json:string><json:string>individual implants</json:string><json:string>commodity development interests</json:string><json:string>implant prosthodontics</json:string><json:string>product information</json:string><json:string>best interests</json:string><json:string>component costs</json:string><json:string>removable prostheses</json:string><json:string>implant systems</json:string><json:string>mandibular prostheses</json:string><json:string>dent</json:string><json:string>research funding</json:string><json:string>treatment planning</json:string><json:string>component cost</json:string><json:string>prosthetic dentistry henry</json:string><json:string>residual ridge structure</json:string><json:string>treatment concepts</json:string><json:string>optimized management</json:string><json:string>implant placement</json:string><json:string>dental implants</json:string><json:string>implant dentistry</json:string><json:string>prosthodontic educators</json:string><json:string>educational perspectives</json:string><json:string>cumulative success rate</json:string><json:string>bone quality</json:string><json:string>future directions</json:string><json:string>many implants</json:string><json:string>prosthodontists need</json:string><json:string>dental research community</json:string><json:string>financial resources</json:string><json:string>molecular biology</json:string><json:string>toronto conference</json:string><json:string>west perth</json:string><json:string>prospective multicenter study</json:string><json:string>removable prosthesis</json:string><json:string>future direction</json:string><json:string>austr dent</json:string><json:string>cigarette smoking</json:string><json:string>editorial council</json:string><json:string>prosthet dent</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Patrick J. Henry BDSc, MSDa</name><affiliations><json:string>Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, West Perth, Australia</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><arkIstex>ark:/67375/6H6-791SXNGH-K</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>Full-length article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Abstract: The 1982 Toronto Conference on Tissue-Integrated Prostheses introduced the technique of osseointegration to the academic dental community. Subsequently, prosthodontists have played a leading role in the educational and clinical development of implant-supported fixed and removable prostheses for the treatment of the edentulous jaw. The success rates of treatment in the mandible have been replicated in many parts of the world and results are rewarding when compared with conventional complete denture therapy. Unfortunately, treatment results in the maxilla do not parallel those in the mandible and the shortfall requires the development of alternative strategies in diagnosis, treatment planning, surgery, and prosthetic management. As these treatment concepts become an everyday practice reality, osseointegrated implants have predictably found their way into the curriculum of all dental specialties. However, in many localities, the role of the prosthodontist in continuing education and research and development has become diluted as other areas of dentistry realize the enormous potential for treatment with osseointegrated implants. Accordingly, prosthodontists need to reevaluate their clinical mind-set if the specialty is to provide a lead role in future therapeutic endeavors. (J Prosthet Dent 1998;79:100-6.)</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>8.74</score><pdfWordCount>4544</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>30065</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>7</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>612 x 792 pts (letter)</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>183</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>1333</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>0</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Future therapeutic directions for management of the edentulous predicament</title><pmid><json:string>9474549</json:string></pmid><pii><json:string>S0022-3913(98)70201-X</json:string></pii><genre><json:string>research-article</json:string></genre><serie><title>The Brånemark osseointegrated implant.</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><pages><first>81</first><last>89</last></pages></serie><host><title>The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><publicationDate>1998</publicationDate><issn><json:string>0022-3913</json:string></issn><pii><json:string>S0022-3913(05)X7048-2</json:string></pii><volume>79</volume><issue>1</issue><pages><first>100</first><last>106</last></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>1997</json:string><json:string>1982</json:string><json:string>1998</json:string><json:string>1989</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>RESEARCH FUNDING FOR IMPLANT PROSTHODONTICS A</json:string><json:string>Academy of Prosthodontics</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName><json:string>Patrick J. Henry</json:string><json:string>Nova Scotia</json:string><json:string>Implants</json:string></persName><placeName><json:string>Canada</json:string><json:string>Halifax</json:string><json:string>Toronto</json:string><json:string>Sweden</json:string></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/6H6-791SXNGH-K</json:string></ark><categories><wos><json:string>1 - science</json:string><json:string>2 - dentistry, oral surgery & medicine</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>1 - health sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - clinical medicine</json:string><json:string>3 - dentistry</json:string></scienceMetrix><scopus><json:string>1 - Health Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Dentistry</json:string><json:string>3 - Oral Surgery</json:string></scopus><inist><json:string>1 - sciences appliquees, technologies et medecines</json:string><json:string>2 - sciences biologiques et medicales</json:string><json:string>3 - sciences medicales</json:string><json:string>4 - chirurgie (generalites). transplantations, greffes d'organes et de tissus. pathologie des greffons</json:string></inist></categories><publicationDate>1998</publicationDate><copyrightDate>1998</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70201-X</json:string></doi><id>7075198051F2E3DC30F4CDD4D247AE020B003835</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/7075198051F2E3DC30F4CDD4D247AE020B003835/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/7075198051F2E3DC30F4CDD4D247AE020B003835/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/7075198051F2E3DC30F4CDD4D247AE020B003835/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Future therapeutic directions for management of the edentulous predicament</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>ELSEVIER</publisher><availability><p>©1998 Editorial Council of The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.</p></availability><date>1998</date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note>aVisiting Prosthodontist.</note><note>Reprint requests to: Dr. P. J. Henry, The Brånemark Center, 64 Havelock St., West Perth, W.A. 6005, AUSTRALIA</note><note>10/1/87108</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Future therapeutic directions for management of the edentulous predicament</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">Patrick J.</forename><surname>Henry</surname></persName><roleName type="degree">BDSc, MSDa</roleName><affiliation>Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, West Perth, Australia</affiliation></author><idno type="istex">7075198051F2E3DC30F4CDD4D247AE020B003835</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70201-X</idno><idno type="PII">S0022-3913(98)70201-X</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j">The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">YMPR</title><idno type="pISSN">0022-3913</idno><idno type="PII">S0022-3913(05)X7048-2</idno><imprint><publisher>ELSEVIER</publisher><date type="published" when="1998"></date><biblScope unit="volume">79</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="100">100</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="106">106</biblScope></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>1998</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>The 1982 Toronto Conference on Tissue-Integrated Prostheses introduced the technique of osseointegration to the academic dental community. Subsequently, prosthodontists have played a leading role in the educational and clinical development of implant-supported fixed and removable prostheses for the treatment of the edentulous jaw. The success rates of treatment in the mandible have been replicated in many parts of the world and results are rewarding when compared with conventional complete denture therapy. Unfortunately, treatment results in the maxilla do not parallel those in the mandible and the shortfall requires the development of alternative strategies in diagnosis, treatment planning, surgery, and prosthetic management. As these treatment concepts become an everyday practice reality, osseointegrated implants have predictably found their way into the curriculum of all dental specialties. However, in many localities, the role of the prosthodontist in continuing education and research and development has become diluted as other areas of dentistry realize the enormous potential for treatment with osseointegrated implants. Accordingly, prosthodontists need to reevaluate their clinical mind-set if the specialty is to provide a lead role in future therapeutic endeavors. (J Prosthet Dent 1998;79:100-6.)</p></abstract></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="1998">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/7075198051F2E3DC30F4CDD4D247AE020B003835/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Elsevier doc found" wicri:toSee="Elsevier, no converted or simple article"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:docType PUBLIC="-//ES//DTD journal article DTD version 5.0.1//EN//XML" URI="art501.dtd" name="istex:docType"><istex:entity SYSTEM="gr1" NDATA="IMAGE" name="gr1"></istex:entity></istex:docType><istex:document><article docsubtype="fla" xml:lang="en"><item-info><jid>YMPR</jid><aid>87108</aid><ce:pii>S0022-3913(98)70201-X</ce:pii><ce:doi>10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70201-X</ce:doi><ce:copyright type="other" year="1998">Editorial Council of The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.</ce:copyright></item-info><head><ce:article-footnote><ce:label>☆</ce:label><ce:note-para><ce:sup>a</ce:sup>Visiting Prosthodontist.</ce:note-para></ce:article-footnote><ce:article-footnote><ce:label>☆☆</ce:label><ce:note-para>Reprint requests to: Dr. P. J. Henry, The Brånemark Center, 64 Havelock St., West Perth, W.A. 6005, AUSTRALIA</ce:note-para></ce:article-footnote><ce:article-footnote><ce:label>★</ce:label><ce:note-para><ce:bold>10/1/87108</ce:bold></ce:note-para></ce:article-footnote><ce:title>Future therapeutic directions for management of the edentulous predicament</ce:title><ce:presented>Presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Prosthodontics, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, May 1997.</ce:presented><ce:author-group><ce:author><ce:given-name>Patrick J.</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Henry</ce:surname><ce:degrees>BDSc, MSD<ce:sup>a</ce:sup></ce:degrees></ce:author><ce:affiliation><ce:textfn>Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, West Perth, Australia</ce:textfn></ce:affiliation></ce:author-group><ce:abstract><ce:section-title>Abstract</ce:section-title><ce:abstract-sec><ce:simple-para>The 1982 Toronto Conference on Tissue-Integrated Prostheses introduced the technique of osseointegration to the academic dental community. Subsequently, prosthodontists have played a leading role in the educational and clinical development of implant-supported fixed and removable prostheses for the treatment of the edentulous jaw. The success rates of treatment in the mandible have been replicated in many parts of the world and results are rewarding when compared with conventional complete denture therapy. Unfortunately, treatment results in the maxilla do not parallel those in the mandible and the shortfall requires the development of alternative strategies in diagnosis, treatment planning, surgery, and prosthetic management. As these treatment concepts become an everyday practice reality, osseointegrated implants have predictably found their way into the curriculum of all dental specialties. However, in many localities, the role of the prosthodontist in continuing education and research and development has become diluted as other areas of dentistry realize the enormous potential for treatment with osseointegrated implants. Accordingly, prosthodontists need to reevaluate their clinical mind-set if the specialty is to provide a lead role in future therapeutic endeavors. (J Prosthet Dent 1998;79:100-6.)</ce:simple-para></ce:abstract-sec></ce:abstract></head><body><ce:sections><ce:para>This Academy of Prosthodontics symposium considered the spectrum of all factors concerned with the optimized management of the edentulous predicament. One major issue was the discussion of the emerging educational conviction that the current standard of complete denture service would eventually be replaced by the implant-supported overdenture.</ce:para><ce:para>Standard of service is influenced by a myriad of issues including what science has to offer, the available logistics, the social and economic restraints, and last, but not least, the informed needs and demands of the patient. Rehabilitation implies an attempt to return the situation to its former capacity or at least alter it to an improved state resulting in resumption of normal activities. In terms of the edentulous predicament, this implies the establishment of normal function in masticatory ability, speech, esthetics, and psychologic sense of well-being. While scientific parameters can be applied, the treatment result is usually expressed as a shade of gray when all factors, including the social issues, are combined to determine an overall rehabilitation index. Historically, this is evident in light of the inherent lack of methodologic discipline in assessing treatment outcomes.</ce:para><ce:para>The regressive changes that militate against the continuum of adaptive responses to removable prostheses persist with implant-supported overdenture therapy, albeit, perhaps to a lesser extent. If strict criteria are applied for rehabilitation, one must question the philosophy of a removable prosthesis per se being considered as state of the art. Most prosthodontists would not consider a removable prosthesis as being the philosophical state of the art for a missing single tooth. Conceptually, where is the turning point with respect to the acceptance of removable versus optimized management for any prosthodontic situation?</ce:para><ce:para>This article reviews the success rate of implant therapy and its impact on prosthodontic philosophy and decision making. This impact has significantly influenced the current prosthodontic paradigm and the evolution of the future therapeutic direction. However, this direction is also influenced by a number of other emerging issues that dictate fundamental evaluation of current philosophy.</ce:para><ce:section><ce:section-title>Success Rates Of Implant Treatment</ce:section-title><ce:para>Success rates can be expressed a number of ways and can either emphasize the success or failure of individual implants or reflect the success or failure of the overall treatment. For example, failure of a single tooth implant means that the treatment has failed conceptually. Conversely, loss of one implant as part of a large multiunit edentulous fixed prosthesis might mean that removal of that implant has little if any effect on the treatment concept, depending on how many implants were originally placed. Therefore success rates of treatment cannot be directly contrasted to the success rates of individual implants. Furthermore, bone quality and quantity in different zones of the jaw cannot in itself be always directly contrasted to overall treatment outcome. The cumulative success rate of implants according to type of treatment is presented in Table I.<ce:cross-refs refid="bib1 bib2 bib3 bib4"><ce:sup>1-4</ce:sup></ce:cross-refs><ce:display><ce:table colsep="0" rowsep="0" frame="topbot"><ce:label>Table I</ce:label><ce:caption><ce:simple-para>Cumulative success rates of implants according to the type of treatment</ce:simple-para></ce:caption><tgroup cols="3"><colspec colname="col1" colsep="0"></colspec><colspec colname="col2" colsep="0"></colspec><colspec colname="col3" colsep="0"></colspec><thead><row rowsep="1" valign="bottom"><entry colsep="1"></entry><entry align="center" colsep="1">Maxillae</entry><entry align="center">Mandibles</entry></row></thead><tbody><row rowsep="1"><entry colsep="1">Single tooth replacements</entry><entry align="center" colsep="1">96.6%</entry><entry align="center">100%</entry></row><row rowsep="1"><entry colsep="1">Partial edentulousness</entry><entry align="center" colsep="1">92.0%</entry><entry align="center">94.2%</entry></row><row rowsep="1"><entry colsep="1">Overdentures</entry><entry align="center" colsep="1">73.4%</entry><entry align="center">96.5%</entry></row><row><entry colsep="1">Complete edentulousness</entry><entry align="center" colsep="1">86.8%</entry><entry align="center">100%</entry></row></tbody></tgroup></ce:table></ce:display>These rates are compiled from controlled, long-term, prospective multicenter trials using Brånemark osseointegrated implants (Nobel Biocare, Göteborg, Sweden).<ce:cross-refs refid="bib1 bib2 bib3 bib4"><ce:sup>1-4</ce:sup></ce:cross-refs> The results are based on a minimal follow-up of 5 years.</ce:para><ce:para>With respect to future directions and the edentulous predicament, the success rate of treatment in the mandible, whether fixed or removable, is not a critical issue for the vast majority of patients. Dentistry would indeed be pleased to boast such a success rate for all advocated restorative procedures in contemporary clinical practice. Conversely, there is considerable concern regarding the treatment outcome in the maxilla, an area that needs to receive priority in terms of research and development.</ce:para><ce:para>Short- to mid-term data are available with a number of implant systems and the success rates of some studies are quite comparable to those of the Brånemark system.<ce:cross-refs refid="bib5 bib6 bib7 bib8"><ce:sup>5-8</ce:sup></ce:cross-refs> It is significant to note that success criteria used are not necessarily identical or always defined. However, the Brånemark system remains as the benchmark when considering accumulated long-term, multicenter data in all areas of prosthodontic implant application. Unfortunately, universally and scientifically based determinants of successful implant treatment do not exist. This area continues to be characterized by anecdote, commodity developmental interests, and pseudoscience. The future direction in implantology must address this issue immediately.</ce:para><ce:para>Increasing emphasis is placed on the importance of identifying and quantifying the important factors determining the outcome of clinical trials and providing this information to the patient so that the treatment decision is an informed one. A number of within-subject studies measured how well different types of implant-supported prostheses satisfy and improve the quality of life of edentulous patients.<ce:cross-refs refid="bib9 bib10 bib11"><ce:sup>9-11</ce:sup></ce:cross-refs> Such studies that use systematic assessments of fundamental outcome variables are critical in formulating future therapeutic direction across the entire range of decision making from the individual independent patient to public health policy for the masses.</ce:para><ce:para>This article does not discuss the merits of, or compare implant systems. The data presented in this article are applicable only to the Brånemark system.</ce:para></ce:section><ce:section><ce:section-title>Future Therapeutic Directions—The Mandible</ce:section-title><ce:para>It has been established that the implant-supported fixed prosthesis is more successful than the implant-retained overdenture in terms of marginal bone height loss, individual implant failure rate, and type of therapy.<ce:cross-refs refid="bib3 bib12 bib13 bib14"><ce:sup>3,12-14</ce:sup></ce:cross-refs> Nevertheless, as previously discussed, some patients prefer an implant-retained overdenture and many clinicians consider the overdenture restoration to be more universally applicable and cost-effective. Intermediate-type hybrid designs that use complete arch implant-anchored substructures with detachable superstructure provide a further option for some dentists and patients. The most effective mode of attachment system for detachable overdentures remains unresolved and comparative studies are required.</ce:para><ce:para>The treatment concepts for mandibular fixed rehabilitation are well-defined with high long-term success rates, replicated in many different centers worldwide.<ce:cross-refs refid="bib12 bib13 bib14"><ce:sup>12-14</ce:sup></ce:cross-refs> More recently attention has been given to simplifying treatment and making it more cost-effective. Pilot studies that have used a single-stage surgical approach for both the fixed prosthesis concept<ce:cross-ref refid="bib15"><ce:sup>15</ce:sup></ce:cross-ref> and the overdenture bar-retained concept<ce:cross-ref refid="bib16"><ce:sup>16</ce:sup></ce:cross-ref> have reported success rates similar to those experienced with the traditional two-stage surgical procedure. The single-stage surgery and simplified prosthetic management advocated for the fixed prosthesis solution can reduce costs by up to 25% in terms of time-saving and real dollar costs (Table II).<ce:cross-ref refid="bib15"><ce:sup>15</ce:sup></ce:cross-ref><ce:display><ce:table colsep="0" rowsep="0" frame="topbot"><ce:label>Table II</ce:label><ce:caption><ce:simple-para>5-year follow-up, pilot study T033C. Single-stage surgery—mandible</ce:simple-para></ce:caption><tgroup cols="2"><colspec colname="col1" colsep="0"></colspec><colspec colname="col2" colsep="0"></colspec><tbody><row rowsep="1"><entry colsep="1">Number of patients</entry><entry>5</entry></row><row rowsep="1"><entry colsep="1">Implants immediately loaded</entry><entry>20</entry></row><row rowsep="1"><entry colsep="1">Sleeping, reserve implants</entry><entry>10</entry></row><row rowsep="1"><entry colsep="1">Total implants</entry><entry><ce:underline>30</ce:underline></entry></row><row rowsep="1"><entry colsep="1">Cumulative success rate of implants</entry><entry>100%</entry></row><row><entry colsep="1">Cumulative success rate of fixed partial dentures</entry><entry>100%</entry></row></tbody></tgroup></ce:table></ce:display>One study also demonstrated that four implants predictably provide anchorage for a full arch prosthesis at the 5-year level .<ce:cross-ref refid="bib17"><ce:sup>17</ce:sup></ce:cross-ref></ce:para><ce:para>Considerable controversy and criticism of manufacturer instrumentation and component costs has occurred. An analysis of the overall cost calculated for implant fixed prosthetic treatment is presented in Table III.
<ce:display><ce:table colsep="0" rowsep="0" frame="topbot"><ce:label>Table III</ce:label><ce:caption><ce:simple-para>Cost calculation formula for mandibular implant prostheses*</ce:simple-para></ce:caption><tgroup cols="2"><colspec colname="col1" colsep="0"></colspec><colspec colname="col2" colsep="0"></colspec><tbody><row rowsep="1"><entry colsep="1">Component costs</entry><entry>22.5%</entry></row><row rowsep="1"><entry colsep="1">Surgical fee</entry><entry>30%</entry></row><row rowsep="1"><entry colsep="1">Prosthetic fee</entry><entry>30%</entry></row><row rowsep="1"><entry colsep="1">Laboratory fee</entry><entry>17.5%</entry></row><row rowsep="1"><entry colsep="1">Total</entry><entry>100%</entry></row><row><entry namest="col1" nameend="col2"></entry></row></tbody></tgroup><ce:legend><ce:simple-para>*Based on five implants, hybrid fixed prosthesis.</ce:simple-para></ce:legend></ce:table></ce:display>The problem of instrumentation and component cost must be viewed in context of the entire cost structure. Many professionals demand reduced instrumentation and component costs but do not consider reducing their professional fee. Unfortunately, human nature is such that others see the debate for lower instrumentation and component costs as an opportunity for possibly greater profitability with respect to their own inherent greed. To substantially reduce the cost of treatment, it is necessary that all parts of the equation be addressed, as reducing instrumentation and component cost per se does not dramatically effect the total equation.</ce:para><ce:para>Rationalized treatment planning for fully informed patients has increasingly challenged one of dentistry's basic principles, that teeth are best retained and prevention is the best cure. Increasing numbers of well-informed patients are electively selecting the implant rehabilitated edentulous state as a predictable alternative to a depleted downhill dentition. Such anecdotal observation suggests that patients are skeptical of complex and expensive procedures with limited evidence-based planning. The decision to retain limited numbers of teeth should be made in light of the strategic and psychologic value of those teeth to the patient, with respect to the various treatment alternatives and what might be the treatment of choice for that person. Such a case history is illustrated in Figure 1 (<ce:italic>A</ce:italic> through <ce:italic>E</ce:italic>).
<ce:display><ce:figure><ce:label>Fig. 1</ce:label><ce:caption><ce:simple-para><ce:bold>A,</ce:bold>. Occlusal view of posterior residual ridge form and anterior restored dentition. <ce:bold>B,</ce:bold> Panoramic radiograph with radiographic-surgical template in place. <ce:bold>C,</ce:bold> Tomogram of posterior mandibular structure. <ce:bold>D,</ce:bold> Extraction of residual dentition and immediate placement of implants. <ce:bold>E,</ce:bold> Panoramic radiographic view of completed restoration.</ce:simple-para></ce:caption> <ce:link locator="gr1"></ce:link></ce:figure></ce:display>This 68-year-old man was treated for replacement of his long-standing removable partial denture by a fixed prosthesis. Radiographic evaluation revealed that implant installation in the posterior mandibular edentulous areas would be technically difficult because of a knife-edged residual ridge structure. The patient elected to have his six remaining viable anterior teeth extracted and replaced by an implant-anchored full arch fixed prosthesis, thus solving his problem with minimal morbidity and no risk of inferior dental nerve damage. Furthermore, the cost calculation of treatment, which involved five implants and a cantilevered fixed partial denture design, was significantly less than the alternative of two to three implant-supported fixed partial dentures and a remake of the anterior six-unit metal ceramic restoration as single crowns.</ce:para><ce:para>Consideration must be given to revising the traditional mind-set of many dentists—in light of this current and future therapeutic direction.</ce:para></ce:section><ce:section><ce:section-title>Future Therapeutic Directions—The Maxilla</ce:section-title><ce:para>A greater diversity of opinion exists in treatment of the maxilla and many fundamental questions remain unanswered. Success rates are significantly different than in the mandible and have been related to differences in residual ridge structure, anatomy, bone quality and quantity, biomechanics, and esthetic requirements. The higher failure rates in the maxilla are common to both fixed and removable partial prostheses. Furthermore, some implant success rates of the implant-supported and implant-retained overdenture do not meet the advocated minimally acceptable criteria for success.</ce:para><ce:para>Fortunately, the maxillary complete denture is an inherently more satisfactory solution for the edentulous predicament than the mandibular complete denture. One center study focused on implant-retained overdentures in the maxilla opposed to cantilever implant-supported fixed partial dentures in the mandible. Patients with a complete maxillary denture opposing a preexisting implant-supported fixed prosthesis in the mandible were solicited for inclusion in the study. Less than 7% of the solicited patients were interested in participation because they were happy with their maxillary complete denture service and saw little benefit in further implant treatment. However, all patients were adamant that, if faced with a return to a mandibular denture state as a result of prosthesis failure, they would seek implant retreatment. It was concluded that the parameters that influenced patient satisfaction were quite different for the maxilla compared with the mandible.</ce:para><ce:para>Conversely the problematic maxillary complete denture situation commonly associated with advanced resorption is another problem that requires a definitive change in therapeutic direction because the general morbidity and specific failure rates associated with bone grafting procedures can be problematic. Certainly, patients who have successful bone grafting are most satisfied; however, failures can often be catastrophic and, regrettably, some patients are left worse off as a result of treatment. In many situations, patients who lose implants lose multiple implants. The biology of this dilemma remains obscure. Furthermore, many potential patients decline the bone-graft option.</ce:para><ce:para>Recently, increased emphasis has been placed on alternative anatomic sites for implant placement to obviate the necessity for bone grafting. One such example is the pterygomaxillary installation site.<ce:cross-refs refid="bib18 bib19"><ce:sup>18,19</ce:sup></ce:cross-refs> This location also provides an alternative to sinus lift procedures. Success rates for this location are encouraging in the treatment of partial and complete edentulous conditions by fixed prostheses and compare favorably with the success rates of other anatomic locations in the maxilla. Another item of particular interest is the newly developed Brånemark zygomatic implant. This long implant offers an exceptionally strong anchorage point for either fixed or removable prostheses and is currently undergoing evaluation in long-term, prospective multicenter clinical trials.</ce:para><ce:para>Other factors that affect the osseointegration process continue to elucidate the failure rate. In one example, tobacco smoking has been increasingly incriminating. While protocols have recommended a period of nonsmoking that covers the treatment phase,<ce:cross-ref refid="bib20"><ce:sup>20</ce:sup></ce:cross-ref> it has also been suggested that implant patients should stop smoking permanently because of the connection between a higher incidence of maxillary peri-implantitis and smoking.<ce:cross-ref refid="bib21"><ce:sup>21</ce:sup></ce:cross-ref></ce:para><ce:para>Further studies are needed to determine whether the adverse effects of smoking on peri-implant tissue are reversible if the patient stops smoking, as has been shown in the reduction of periodontal disease in former smokers compared with active smokers.<ce:cross-ref refid="bib22"><ce:sup>22</ce:sup></ce:cross-ref> As a future therapeutic endeavor prosthodontists should take a lead role in attempting to permanently alter the behavioral characteristics of patients at risk in this area. Training programs aimed at this specific issue have existed in medicine for several years and it is desirable that dental professionals take a more profound interest in this educational opportunity.</ce:para><ce:para>The plethora of designs seen with implant-retained overdentures whether on balls, bars, clips, milled, or spark-eroded suprastructures, with or without palatal coverage and predicated by yardstick calculations as to the number of implants required is indicative of chaos. An in-depth consensus conference dedicated to the maxillary implant-retained overdenture is a high level priority. Future therapeutic direction cannot be rationalized on the existing base of haphazard art form and pseudoscience that currently pervades this area of prosthodontics.</ce:para><ce:para>Only one 10-year report exists regarding simplification of treatment in terms of number of implants to reduce costs and logistic requirements. In this study, it was shown that implant-supported cantilevered fixed prostheses on four implants, in either maxilla or mandible, had comparable long-term survival rates for both individual implants and prostheses when compared with patients treated with fixed partial dentures supported by six implants.<ce:cross-ref refid="bib17"><ce:sup>17</ce:sup></ce:cross-ref> It concluded that the tendency of some clinicians to place as many implants as possible should be seriously questioned. Future therapeutic endeavors in the maxilla will continue to be significantly dependent on research and development of surgical procedures, application of bone induction agents, and osteopromotive biotechnology.</ce:para></ce:section><ce:section><ce:section-title>Educational Implications And Dental Implants</ce:section-title><ce:para>The last 15 years have seen considerable change in the role of the prosthodontist in implant dentistry. After the 1982 Toronto Conference on tissue-integrated prostheses, prosthodontic educators and specialists took a lead role in the promulgation of osseointegration to the dental academic community and eventually to the profession as a whole. In 1989 it was stated that foresight and forbearance would have to be exerted by dental educators to properly control the impact of osseointegration on contemporary dentistry.<ce:cross-ref refid="bib23"><ce:sup>23</ce:sup></ce:cross-ref> That overview of educational perspectives, responsibilities, and future directions predicted most of the changes that have occurred since that time. In the surgical area we have seen a significant shift in influence and impact made by the continuing expansion of periodontist interest in implant placement. Today increasing numbers of general dentists, endodontists, and even some predoctoral dental students routinely place implants as forecast. All academic disciplines now include osseointegrated implants in their curriculum and implant dentistry is a reality in contemporary general dental practice.</ce:para><ce:para>The prosthodontist no longer universally enjoys the central role and in many locations the prosthodontic sphere of influence is seen to be diluted to what it once was. The extreme situation is becoming more commonplace, wherein an oral surgeon places some implants and makes an implant level impression registration. The dental laboratory completes the work authorization and a third party restorative dentist, or maybe struggling prosthodontist, inserts the prosthesis with no prior input. In reality, the only area of implant prosthodontics where prosthodontists still enjoy an undiluted role is that of maxillofacial prosthetics.</ce:para><ce:para>If future therapeutic directions are to enjoy maximum input from prosthodontists, it is essential that lost ground be retrieved. The key to the future is mind-set, political positioning, and reevaluation of educational perspective both as a contemporary issue and a future direction. The minimal requirement for future prosthodontic specialists is that all postdoctoral programs should at least offer elective courses in implant installation surgery and soft tissue management. Another reason that prosthodontists have lost the lead role in some locations is the conviction that only a prosthodontist has the background and training to accomplish implant prosthodontics. Accordingly, their training courses are geared toward convincing general dentists that the treatment is beyond them. This result is self-inflicted loss of credibility because it is inevitable that general dentists will widely perform treatment anyway and, if necessary, will receive their education direct from an implant company. Prosthodontists should take a lesson from the inroads made by periodontists. The commercial success of the periodontist is related to the creation of referral networks resulting in a mutually beneficial partnership. Conversely, referral to a prosthodontist is often seen by the general dentist level to be one-way.</ce:para><ce:para>Therefore prosthodontists involved in continuing education should encourage general dentists to develop a graduated step-wise approach to education, so that the dentist performs simple treatments while referring patients with complex needs to the prosthodontist. Thus the prosthodontist maintains a lead role while developing the educational base of the network and general dentists are taught the desirable protocols for appropriate referral channels. An illustration of such was the development of a multicenter study aimed at general dentists performing both single tooth implant surgery and implant prosthodontics.<ce:cross-ref refid="bib24"><ce:sup>24</ce:sup></ce:cross-ref> This study demonstrated that comparable success rates and esthetic results could be obtained as compared with the more experienced specialist team approach. Simultaneously, strong referral networks were developed as a corollary to the study.</ce:para></ce:section><ce:section><ce:section-title>Research Funding For Implant Prosthodontics</ce:section-title><ce:para>A related issue is that of the morality and bias of prosthodontic educators and researchers with respect to their involvement with implant manufacturers and commodity development interests. Academicians cherish the freedom of the university environment. Unfortunately, this is all too often used to advantage in maximizing funding under the guise of research and clinical evaluation. Furthermore, personal ambition encourages the adoption of a particular implant system if the manufacturer suffers from a lack of appropriate product champions. Thus a situation of mutual benefit develops whereby a generic developmental interest achieves academic credibility and the academician achieves notoriety on an all-expenses-paid lecture circuit.</ce:para><ce:para>Some universities teach students multiple implant systems, so that the students can make up their own mind on what systems they should use in practice. Meanwhile, the university can play both ends against the middle to ensure perpetual funding. Because of minimal time available in the curriculum for the teaching of implantology, too often students find the demands too much and simply fail to comprehend it all with resultant confusion and ineffective education. At the incidental level of patient care, patients are often subjected to whatever implants are the "flavor of the week" under the guise of "research funding." Unfortunately, such scenarios are not in the best interests of education or patient welfare.</ce:para><ce:para>The fact remains that future therapeutic directions will be inevitably interwoven with the research and development interests of reputable manufacturers. In reality, this is a major reason for what has been achieved thus far and, furthermore, this conference would not have been possible without the support and sponsorship of such interests. Nevertheless, the dental research community must exert its influence at all levels of interest in the implant field and insist that the highest standards of scientific evaluation be applied. The dental research community also has a responsibility to ensure that financial resources available from commodity development interests are controlled and used in the best interests of science itself and for the long-term health and welfare of the community.<ce:cross-ref refid="bib25"><ce:sup>25</ce:sup></ce:cross-ref></ce:para></ce:section><ce:section><ce:section-title>Future Therapeutic Directions In Diagnosis And Treatment Planning</ce:section-title><ce:section><ce:section-title>Information technology</ce:section-title><ce:para>Future therapeutic directions must not only continue to build on the remedies and protocols of current concepts, but must adapt to and take advantage of the rapid growth in information technology. The use of the world-wide web for diagnosis and treatment planning, prosthodontic education, and ongoing prosthodontic dialogue and intercourse will know no limits and defies imagination. The current inadequate pace of visualized information delivery is symptomatic not only of a medium in its infancy but also of a profound shift in the perception of ideas.<ce:cross-ref refid="bib26"><ce:sup>26</ce:sup></ce:cross-ref></ce:para><ce:para>Undoubtedly, difficulties and resistance will surface as we encompass the change from written record to collective electronic memory, but the change is inevitable. While many prosthodontists are using computers for many aspects of examination and data management in practice, together with computer-generated three-dimensional modeling of skeletal bones for implant treatment planning, the fact remains that most prosthodontists are not yet aware of the enormous potential impact of electronic information transfer.</ce:para></ce:section><ce:section><ce:section-title>Molecular biology</ce:section-title><ce:para>The amazingly rapid advances in genetics, molecular biology, and biotechnology have resulted in an overwhelming inadequacy to comprehend the future. The promise of molecular and cellular research is that many of the diseases and conditions we treat can be addressed at the molecular level. An altruistic approach to the provision of a service eliminates the need for that service by preventing its necessity. For example, as the genetic markers of hypodontia become unraveled, the possibilities of prevention expand and therapies will follow.<ce:cross-ref refid="bib27"><ce:sup>27</ce:sup></ce:cross-ref></ce:para><ce:para>If prosthodontics is to remain a viable specialty, prosthodontists must be willing to break from and expand beyond their strictly mechanical perspective. While the new molecular paradigm of dentistry is in its infancy, prosthodontists should grasp the opportunity to grow with it by becoming knowledgeable in the use of molecular aids to diagnoses. Then, as subsequent advances are made, they will be positioned to use the new therapies.<ce:cross-ref refid="bib28"><ce:sup>28</ce:sup></ce:cross-ref> The philosophical alternatives are to stay ahead of the situation or alternatively fall behind the times. The question again refers to the concept of the lead-role and the recognition and taking of new opportunity.</ce:para></ce:section></ce:section><ce:section><ce:section-title>Prosthodontic Responsibility And World Health</ce:section-title><ce:para>The information superhighway presents prosthodontists with an unparalleled opportunity to exert opinion quickly and effectively on some of the major social issues confronting today's world, with respect to possible ramifications affecting prosthodontic endeavors. The debate is whether the prosthodontic establishment has a role to play at this level. For example, dietary supplements have been shown to significantly reduce the occurrence of cleft palate, while, conversely, a tenfold increase in congenital abnormalities have been reported in areas torn by civil conflict. In this context, the international health community has a responsibility to take up the challenge of exposing how the right to health is being denied to many peoples and cultures worldwide.<ce:cross-ref refid="bib29"><ce:sup>29</ce:sup></ce:cross-ref> Does the prosthodontic community also have the responsibility to address such issues in connection with the edentulous predicament as it affects the future of the profession?</ce:para></ce:section><ce:section><ce:section-title>Conclusions</ce:section-title><ce:para>A number of alternatives exist for the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Although osseointegrated implant-supported restorations are now a widespread reality, the necessity exists to improve the treatment effort and to rationalize the shortfall. Historically, prosthodontics have played a key role in this development, however:</ce:para><ce:para><ce:list><ce:list-item><ce:label>1.</ce:label><ce:para>As implant treatment becomes a common practice reality, the role of the prosthodontist has become relatively diminished. Accordingly prosthodontists need to reexamine the classical mind-set if the specialty is to provide a lead role in future therapeutic endeavors.</ce:para></ce:list-item><ce:list-item><ce:label>2.</ce:label><ce:para>Future therapeutic endeavors are dependent on research and development and must inevitably involve commercial interests. Prosthodontists have a responsibility to ensure that financial resources available from commodity development interests are controlled and used in the best interests of science itself and for the long-term health and welfare of the patient.</ce:para></ce:list-item><ce:list-item><ce:label>3.</ce:label><ce:para>Prosthodontists must embrace advances in information science and biotechnology and reposition the future role of the specialty.</ce:para></ce:list-item></ce:list></ce:para></ce:section></ce:sections></body><tail><ce:bibliography><ce:section-title>References</ce:section-title><ce:bibliography-sec><ce:bib-reference id="bib1"><ce:label>1</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>PJ</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Henry</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>WR</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Laney</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>T</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Jemt</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>D</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Harris</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>PHJ</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Krogh</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>G</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Polizzi</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:et-al></sb:et-al></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Osseointegrated implants for single-tooth replacement: a prospective 5-year multicenter study</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>11</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1996</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>450</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>455</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib2"><ce:label>2</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>U</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Lekholm</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>D</ce:given-name><ce:surname>van Steenberghe</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>PJ</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Henry</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>C</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Bolender</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>T</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Folmer</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>J</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Gunne</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:et-al></sb:et-al></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of partially edentulous jaws: a prospective 5-year multicenter study</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>9</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1994</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>627</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>635</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib3"><ce:label>3</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>T</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Jemt</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>RB</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Johns</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>I</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Herrmann</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>MR</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Heath</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>J</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Hutton</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>RB</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Johns</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:et-al></sb:et-al></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>A 5-year prospective multicenter follow-up report on overdentures supported by osseointegrated implants</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>11</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1996</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>291</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>298</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib4"><ce:label>4</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>M</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Olsson</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>B</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Friberg</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>H</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Nilson</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>C.</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Kultje</ce:surname></sb:author></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>MkII-a modified self-tapping Brånemark implant: 3-year results of a controlled prospective pilot study</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>10</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1995</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>1521</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>1586</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib5"><ce:label>5</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>K</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Gotfredsen</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>B</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Holm</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>I</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Sewerin</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>F</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Harder</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>E</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Hjørting-Hansen</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>CS</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Pedersen</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:et-al></sb:et-al></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Marginal tissue response adjacent to Astra dental implants supporting overdentures in the mandible. A 2-year follow-up study</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Clin Oral Implants Res</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>4</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1993</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>83</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>89</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib6"><ce:label>6</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>H</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Spiekermann</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>VK</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Jansen</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>EJ.</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Richter</ce:surname></sb:author></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>A 10-year follow-up on IMZ and TPS implants in the edentulous mandible using bar-retained overdentures</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>10</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1995</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>231</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>243</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib7"><ce:label>7</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>R</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Lazzara</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>AA</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Siddiqui</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>PP</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Binon</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>S</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Feldman</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>R</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Weiner</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>RM</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Phillips</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:et-al></sb:et-al></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Retrospective multicenter analysis of 31 endosseous dental implants placed over a 5-year period</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Clin Oral Implants Res</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>7</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1996</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>73</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>83</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib8"><ce:label>8</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>D</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Buser</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>R</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Mericske-Stern</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>JP</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Bernard</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>A</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Behneke</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>N</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Behneke</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>HP</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Hirt</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:et-al></sb:et-al></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Long-term evaluation of nonsubmerged ITI implants. Part 1: 8-year life table analysis of a prospective multicenter study with 2359 implants</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Clin Oral Implants Res</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>8</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1997</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>161</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>172</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib9"><ce:label>9</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>P</ce:given-name><ce:surname>de Grandmont</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>JS</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Feine</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>P</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Boudrias</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>N</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Brien</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>C</ce:given-name><ce:surname>LaMarche</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>R</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Tache</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:et-al></sb:et-al></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Within-subject comparisons of implant-supported mandibular prostheses: psychometric evaluation</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>J Dent Res</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>73</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1994</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>1096</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>1104</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib10"><ce:label>10</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>JS</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Feine</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>P</ce:given-name><ce:surname>de Grandmont</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>P</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Boudrias</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:et-al></sb:et-al></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Within-subject comparisons of implant-supported mandibular prostheses: choice of prosthesis</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>J Dent Res</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>73</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1994</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>1105</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>1111</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib11"><ce:label>11</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>JS</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Feine</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>K</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Maskawi</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>P</ce:given-name><ce:surname>de Gandmont</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>WB</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Donohue</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>R</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Tanguay</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>JP.</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Lund</ce:surname></sb:author></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Within-subject comparisons of implant-supported mandibular prostheses: evaluation of masticatory function</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>J Dent Res</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>73</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1994</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>1646</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>1656</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib12"><ce:label>12</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>R</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Adell</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>B</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Eriksson</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>U</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Lekholm</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>P-I</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Brånemark</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>T.</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Jemt</ce:surname></sb:author></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>A long-term follow-up study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the totally edentulous jaw</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>5</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1990</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>347</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>359</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib13"><ce:label>13</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>GA</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Zarb</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>A.</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Schmitt</ce:surname></sb:author></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Osseointegration and the edentulous predicament. The 10 year Toronto study</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Br Dent J</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>170</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1991</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>439</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>444</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib14"><ce:label>14</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>PJ</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Henry</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>RC</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Bower</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>CD.</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Wall</ce:surname></sb:author></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible with osseointegrated dental implants: 10-year follow-up</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Austr Dent J</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>40</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1995</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>1</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>9</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib15"><ce:label>15</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>PJ</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Henry</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>I.</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Rosenberg</ce:surname></sb:author></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Single stage surgery for rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible: preliminary results</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Pract Perio Aesthet Dent</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>6</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1994</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>15</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>22</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib16"><ce:label>16</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>JP</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Bernard</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>UC</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Belser</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>JP</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Martinet</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>SA.</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Borgis</ce:surname></sb:author></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Osseointegration of Brånemark fixtures using a single-step operating technique. A preliminary prospective one-year study in the edentulous mandible</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Clin Oral Implants Res</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>6</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1995</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>122</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>129</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib17"><ce:label>17</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>PI</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Brånemark</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>B</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Svensson</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>D.</ce:given-name><ce:surname>van Steenberghe</ce:surname></sb:author></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Ten year survival rates of fixed prostheses on four or six implants ad modum Brånemark in full edentulism</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Clin Oral Implants Res</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:series><sb:date>1995</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>227</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>231</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib18"><ce:label>18</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>P</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Worthington</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>PI.</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Brånemark</ce:surname></sb:author></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Advanced osseointegration surgery: applications in the maxillofacial region</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:edited-book><sb:date>1992</sb:date><sb:publisher><sb:name>Quintessence</sb:name><sb:location>Chicago</sb:location></sb:publisher></sb:edited-book><sb:pages><sb:first-page>182</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>188</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib19"><ce:label>19</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>O.</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Bahat</ce:surname></sb:author></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Osseointegrated implants in the maxillary tuberosity: report on 45 consecutive patients</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>7</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1992</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>459</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>467</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib20"><ce:label>20</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>CA</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Bain</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>PK.</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Moy</ce:surname></sb:author></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>The association between the failure of dental implants and cigarette smoking</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>8</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1993</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>609</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>615</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib21"><ce:label>21</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>R</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Haas</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>W</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Haimböck</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>G</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Mailath</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>G.</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Watzek</ce:surname></sb:author></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>The relationship of smoking on peri-implant tissue: a retrospective study</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>J Prosthet Dent</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>76</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1996</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>592</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>596</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib22"><ce:label>22</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>J</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Haber</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>J</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Wattles</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>M</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Crowley</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>R</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Mandell</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>K</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Joshipura</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>RL.</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Kent</ce:surname></sb:author></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Evidence for cigarette smoking as a major risk factor for periodontitis</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>J Periodontol</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>64</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1993</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>16</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>23</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib23"><ce:label>23</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>PJ.</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Henry</ce:surname></sb:author></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Educational perspectives and responsibilities</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:edited-book><sb:book-series><sb:editors><sb:editor><ce:given-name>T</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Albrektsson</ce:surname></sb:editor><sb:editor><ce:given-name>GA</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Zarb</ce:surname></sb:editor></sb:editors><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>The Brånemark osseointegrated implant.</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:series></sb:book-series><sb:date>1989</sb:date><sb:publisher><sb:name>Quintessence</sb:name><sb:location>Chicago</sb:location></sb:publisher></sb:edited-book><sb:pages><sb:first-page>81</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>89</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib24"><ce:label>24</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>PJ</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Henry</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>IR</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Rosenberg</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>IG</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Bills</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>RW</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Chan</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>AC</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Cohen</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>KG</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Halliday</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:et-al></sb:et-al></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Osseointegrated implants for single tooth replacement in general practice: a 1 year report from a multicentre prospective study</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Austr Dent J</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>40</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1995</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>173</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>181</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib25"><ce:label>25</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>PJ.</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Henry</ce:surname></sb:author></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Implant hardware science or commodity development?</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>J Dent Res</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>74</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1995</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>301</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>302</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib26"><ce:label>26</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>B.</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Davis</ce:surname></sb:author></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>The culture machine: science and art on the web</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Sci Am</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>275</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1996</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>84</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>88</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib27"><ce:label>27</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>I.</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Thesleff</ce:surname></sb:author></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Two genes for missing teeth</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Nat Genet</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>13</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1996</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>379</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>380</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib28"><ce:label>28</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>GD.</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Douglass</ce:surname></sb:author></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Prosthodontics: its challenges and promise for the future</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>J Calif Dent Assoc</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>24</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1996</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>36</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>38</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib29"><ce:label>29</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>M</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Carbaclo</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>S</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Simic</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>D.</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Zeric</ce:surname></sb:author></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Health in countries torn by conflict: lessons from Sarajevo</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Lancet</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>348</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1996</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>872</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>874</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference></ce:bibliography-sec></ce:bibliography></tail></article></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Future therapeutic directions for management of the edentulous predicament</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" lang="en" contentType="CDATA"><title>Future therapeutic directions for management of the edentulous predicament</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Patrick J.</namePart><namePart type="family">Henry</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">BDSc, MSDa</namePart><affiliation>Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, West Perth, Australia</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="research-article" displayLabel="Full-length article" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-1JC4F85T-7">research-article</genre><originInfo><publisher>ELSEVIER</publisher><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">1998</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">1998</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm></language><abstract lang="en">Abstract: The 1982 Toronto Conference on Tissue-Integrated Prostheses introduced the technique of osseointegration to the academic dental community. Subsequently, prosthodontists have played a leading role in the educational and clinical development of implant-supported fixed and removable prostheses for the treatment of the edentulous jaw. The success rates of treatment in the mandible have been replicated in many parts of the world and results are rewarding when compared with conventional complete denture therapy. Unfortunately, treatment results in the maxilla do not parallel those in the mandible and the shortfall requires the development of alternative strategies in diagnosis, treatment planning, surgery, and prosthetic management. As these treatment concepts become an everyday practice reality, osseointegrated implants have predictably found their way into the curriculum of all dental specialties. However, in many localities, the role of the prosthodontist in continuing education and research and development has become diluted as other areas of dentistry realize the enormous potential for treatment with osseointegrated implants. Accordingly, prosthodontists need to reevaluate their clinical mind-set if the specialty is to provide a lead role in future therapeutic endeavors. (J Prosthet Dent 1998;79:100-6.)</abstract><note>aVisiting Prosthodontist.</note><note>Reprint requests to: Dr. P. J. Henry, The Brånemark Center, 64 Havelock St., West Perth, W.A. 6005, AUSTRALIA</note><note>10/1/87108</note><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated"><title>YMPR</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</genre><originInfo><publisher>ELSEVIER</publisher><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">199801</dateIssued></originInfo><identifier type="ISSN">0022-3913</identifier><identifier type="PII">S0022-3913(05)X7048-2</identifier><part><date>199801</date><detail type="volume"><number>79</number><caption>vol.</caption></detail><detail type="issue"><number>1</number><caption>no.</caption></detail><extent unit="issue-pages"><start>6</start><end>106</end></extent><extent unit="pages"><start>100</start><end>106</end></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">7075198051F2E3DC30F4CDD4D247AE020B003835</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/6H6-791SXNGH-K</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70201-X</identifier><identifier type="PII">S0022-3913(98)70201-X</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">©1998 Editorial Council of The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-HKKZVM7B-M">elsevier</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Editorial Council of The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry., ©1998</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/7075198051F2E3DC30F4CDD4D247AE020B003835/metadata/json</uri></json:item></metadata></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 003761 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 003761 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Santé
|area= EdenteV2
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:7075198051F2E3DC30F4CDD4D247AE020B003835
|texte= Future therapeutic directions for management of the edentulous predicament
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |