Single-Unit Implants Versus Conventional Treatments for Compromised Teeth: A Brief Review of the Evidence

Single-Unit Implants Versus Conventional Treatments for Compromised Teeth: A Brief Review of the Evidence
Submitted for publication 12/09/04; accepted 01/28/05
Clarence S. Tang, B.A.; Adam E. Naylor, B.S.
J Dent Educ. 69(4): 414-418 2005
ий 2005 American Dental Education Association
Mr. Tang and Mr. Naylor are both Predoctoral Students, Class of 2006, University of North Carolina School of Dentistry. Direct correspondence and requests for reprints to Mr. Clarence Tang, University of North Carolina School of Dentistry, Student Mailboxes 006-065, CB #7450, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7450; 919-321-0239 phone; 919-966-5795 fax; tangcs@email.unc.edu.
Key words: dental implants, implant-supported dental prosthesis, single-tooth implants, endodontics, periodontics
The goal of preserving the natural dentition has long provided the foundation for clinical decision making in dentistry. Current trends in implant dentistry have weakened this paradigm as many practitioners have moved quickly to adopt implant dentistry as a new standard of care; however, the rapidity of this shift is a cause for concern among others. Many short-term studies have reported favorable data supporting the growth of single-unit implant dentistry, but the lack of standardized outcome evaluations and broadly conceived dimensions of performance makes it difficult to compare these reports. Thus, even with the exciting new treatment options implant dentistry offers patients and practitioners, all due consideration should first be given to treatments aimed at preserving and restoring compromised teeth before pursuing extraction and replacement. This article examines this premise from five perspectives: form, function, survival, management of complications, and quality of life.
This is a subscription site. You will need to register and pay to view the entire article.