implants0112

I overview ahardtimeacceptingthedevelopmentfromsurgical to prosthetic implantology, and they were strictly against the new digital procedures that were emerg- ingincrediblyquickly.Withtherapidspreadofden- tal volume tomography, which opened a new di- mension to dental image diagnostics, a multitude of planning programs and aids were placed on the market. The suggestion by some opinion leaders to de- fine validity and establish standards with regard to thesenewtechniques,whicharegenerallybasedon 3-D X-ray data, was especially frowned upon. I feel that a good compromise has been reached, owing to anticipatory and serious discussions held during consensus conferences and congresses, as well as at universities and within the dental associations. These new techniques are immensely helpful in the treatment of complex cases, and they are even indispensable for highly complex cases. The treat- ment of simple cases usually does not require the use of these techniques. In fact, they should not be used in such cases owing to the radiation exposure when obtaining 3-D data. _Of promises and realities Themes of the congresses during the first decade of the observation period contained gener- ally positive statements and depicted new oppor- tunities in implantology, which exceeded the then current options by far and expressed a belief in boundless growth. This coincided with many posi- tive statements and evaluations by implant manu- facturers and distributors. However, all this changed considerably during the past five years. Suddenly, new topics were given priority, which shaped specialists’ conventions—topics that had previouslybeenpartiallysuppressedifnotnegated. Irememberonlytoowelltheimplantcongressheld by a very important American implant manufac- turerinFrankfurt/Mainin1998,whereIreportedon a concept for the treatment of peri-implantitis de- veloped at the University of Freiburg and was then rebuked by the main speaker, who was from the USA, during the ensuing panel discussion. He as- serted that he had “not seen one case of peri-im- plantitisintwentyyearsofimplantology—thisphe- nomenon does not exist and, if it occurs, it can only be attributed to a lack in skill on the part of the im- plantologists.” How times have changed. However, trouble-shooting and complications in implantol- ogy and even the word “failure” have been men- tioned in the themes of many congresses held by leading professional associations of implantology in the past years. _Patients’ expectations While a consistently positive and at times even euphorictoneprevailedregardingthetopicofim- plants for many years, a few critical voices and later increasing criticism emerged at the begin- ning of the observation period. This was—concur- rent with a noticeable increase in the number of implants—based on the considerable increase in 10 I implants1_2012 Fig. 19 Fig. 20Fig. 18 Fig. 22 Fig. 23Fig. 21