Over the past decades dental implant with 90-98% success rate has become an integral part of reconstructive dentistry. As the supporting tissues of the implant have different structure and circumstance with natural teeth like less vascularity and different collagen fibers arrangement and amount, dental implants are more susceptible to infection and bone resorption, thereafter an extensive and careful maintenance protocol should be followed. However, the attraction of patient to implant treatment is growing up, the maintenance protocol following treatment is ignored. This neglect or maybe lack of awareness can lead to peri-implantitis, bone resorption and finally implant failure. Although there are some risk factors for periimplantitis like: smoking, history of periodontitis, limited oral hygiene, systemic disease and poor plaque control. The awareness and periodic recall of the patient by dentist (every three months in the first year and every six months thereafter) play a great role in prevention of implant failure. This study is aimed to review the maintenance protocol which is divided into two main category called professional (sonic and ultra-sonic scaler, plastic or Teflon coated curettes, oral irrigation and occlusal adjustment) and home care (manual tooth brush, mechanical tooth brush, dental floss, interproximal brush and antimicrobial). An electronic search for article in English language literature from the past 5 years about implant maintenance was performed using a systemic search process. Nowadays implant treatment has become a main part of dentistry which involves different specialties from periodontology to surgery and prosthesis, the point here is the behavior of the patient after treatment following the principle to keep the implant in a best situation to avoid failure and additional costs.

Background. Nowadays there are many ideas to achieve High success and reliable treatment surgeries for bothpartially and totally edentulous patient. The aim of this review to compare accuracy and advantages of computer guided navigation system vs conventional free hand method. Methods. This review has been done by searching in electronic data bases including PubMed and scopus with these key words” computer assisted surgery” , “ navigation implant surgery” , “ dynamic navigation implant” , “ static navigation implant” . Results. In navigation surgery for dental implants the two approaches; dynamic and static were introduced. The static navigation refers to use of surgical templates for the bone implant drilling. Dynamic navigation is used to monitoring through a three_dimentional softwar of the bone drilling and implant placment following the preoperative plane, while the freehand implant placement requires no guided stents. Through computer guided surgery it possible to reduce deviation and differences between the preoprative CBCT images and measurements from final treatment outcome. Also, the CAS method is usefull in cases with complications like proximity of inferior alveolar nerve. Conclusions. A number of statistically singnificant were found in comprison. In computer assisted group indicate no implant fails, reduce of post surgical pain and swelling. And the mean marginal bone loss decreased.

Objective: Predoctoral dental implant education is included in dental school teaching curricula in most of the developed and some developing countries; however, it was not introduced into undergraduate curriculum of some countries and Iranian dental schools.Our purpose was to investigate the status of the predoctoral dental implant education of dental schools in the world.Materials and Methods: One hundred-thirty five dental schools were randomly selected representing 62 countries divided into two regions. The first region included North America and Europe, and the second region comprised of Asia, South America and Africa. A questionnaire including onset year, lecture hours, lectures available on the internet, required textbooks, department jurisdictions, the year of dental school the course was offered, clinical and laboratory courses, implant systems used surgically and in restorative phase, and type of restorations treated by predoctoral students was mailed electronically to the predoctoral implant dentistry directors.Results: Ninety-two (68%) schools responded; of which 79 (86%) incorporated implant dentistry in their predoctoral teaching curricula, 39 (49%) offered surgical and prosthodontics courses in which students mainly observe. Of these 39 dental schools, 28 (71%) and 11 (29%) dental schools are from the first and second region, respectively.Conclusion: A large percentage of responding schools included implant education in the predoctoral dental curriculum. Onset year of course, topics included in lecture series, lecture hours, faculty to student ratio and practical course vary among schools. Fifty percent of responding dental schools including Iranian dental schools do not have curriculum guidelines for predoctoral implant dentistry.

Background and Aim: In the last decade, implant surface treatment in order to maintain rapid and improved osseointegration has been considered worldwide. This study reviews methods used to increase osseointegration of dental implants by surface modification techniques.Materials and Methods: A search in PubMed was performed by typing the following words: dental implant surface, implant surface treatment, implants surface modification and 48 relevant articles were extracted from 2000 to 2012.Results: surface characteristics of dental implants such as surface chemistry, thickness of the TiO2 layer, wettability, surface charge, and surface roughness can increase the rate and strength of osseointegration. Many of these methods have been shown to have clinical efficacy (>95% over 5) years.Conclusions: The exact role of the surface chemical characteristics and surface topography in the primary events of osseo integration has not been clarified precisely. In addition, human clinical trials that compare current methods simultaneously in a split mouth design are rare. Many of these studies were in vitro and generalizing the results of these studies to the clinical practice is difficult. Therefore, more clinical trials are suggested.

Background. Implant dentistry treatment target to avoid any kind of edentulous state including tooth loss due to trauma, caries and pathologic events. Methods. In the literature, there are numerous case reports and few clinical studies documenting treatment options of traumatic injuries to dental implants. Dental implant fracture is a rare biomechanical complication, however, one of the most serious and frustrating ones as it is generally associated with implant and prosthesis failure. Possible causes of implant fracture include inadequate fit of the superstructure, defects in the production or design of the material, long-term metal fatigue, magnitude or direction of occlusal forces, parafunctional habits, implant location, implant length, implant diameter, and bone resorption around the implant. In many cases, however, fractures due to bone resorption and bone resorption due to factures are hard to distinguish in retrospect Results. Except these complications one of the most frightening difficulties in dental important especially in lower jaw is jaw fracture. Mandibular fracture associated with dental implants treatment is related with dental implant installation procedures, after inferior alveolar nerve transposition technique or mandibular distraction before implant procedure and in very rare cases due to periimplantitis Conclusions. The authors want to review literatures about implant fractures or jaw fracture due to implant insertion and emphasis on causes, prevention and managements of these issues and finally introduce some cases for these types of complications.

Considering the increasing use of dental implants, their failure is a serious challenge encountered by dentists. An accurate prediction of the rate of failure based on the underlying factors allows patients to accept the risk of failure. This study assessed the failure rate and time of implant treatment in patients referred to a specialized clinic. This study was conducted on implant cases in Shahid Montazeri Clinic in Tehran, Iran, from March 2008 to March 2017. A total of 544 patients including 248 patients in the failure group (case) and 296 patients in the treatment success group (control) were evaluated. Data were analyzed using the univariate and multivariable logistic regression. Males, older patients, posterior implant placement site, and shorter height and/or diameter of dental implants increased the risk of failure (P<0.05). The implant brand was also an effective factor in the failure rate (P<0.001). Implants with smaller length or diameter were more prone to failure. Accordingly, in selecting a dental implant, attention should be paid to the patient's age, sex, and location of implant to reduce the failure rate by increasing the diameter and length of implant.

Introduction: During using osseointegrated dental implants, as a foundation for the prosthetic replacement of missing teeth, failures and complications inevitably occur. The aim of this literature review was to present the studies related to the effects of smoking on dental implant procedures.Methods and Materials: Relevant clinical English studies published up to end of May 2008 through Medline and Cochrane Oral Health Group database (COHG) were surveyed. This was supplemented with a hand search of selected dental journals and text books at libraries of Isfahan School of Dentistry and School of Dentistry at the University of Toronto. Agreement between the reviewers was determined performing k-statistic. Disagreements were resolved by evaluation of the full texts and discussion. Due to heterogeneity of the factors in different studies, no meta-analysis performed. The results of different studies presented in a systematic manner.Conclusion: Implant complications, marginal bone loss and implant failure were higher in smokers than non-smokers. The deleterious effects of cigarette smoking are dose dependent and were more pronounced in upper jaw. The negative effects of smoking were also less observed in medium rough surfaced implants. The success rates of GBR and SFEA procedures with implants were much lower in smokers. Appropriate oral hygiene instructions should be given and the deleterious effects of smoking on implant therapy should be highlighted. In patients who do not quit smoking, antibiotic should be given before surgery. Patient must also instruct not to smoke 1 week before and 8 weeks after surgery.