The research group meets monthly and is attended by ten dental surgeons who practise implantology.
Members of the research group monitor any developments in advanced implant surgery, set up joint research projects, publish together and study complex cases.
Specialists are regularly invited to contribute to the discussions of the research group.
The Study Group is composed of the following Drs:
Abillama Théodore M.
Dr. Jeremy Abitbol is a private practitioner in Neuilly-sur-Seine.
He graduated in 2013 from the University of Paris 7 and completed his university degree with the Certificate of Higher Studies in Surgical Odontology, Paris 7, and the Certificate of Advanced Studies in Fixed Prosthesis.
He was tied as a volunteer during the Oral Surgery department of Pitié Salpétrière.
Currently, he pursues his studies at the University Diploma in Clinical Oral Implantology in Paris 5.
Trained at the university of Lyon, Dr Hadi Antoun, dental surgeon, holds a Speciality Certificate in Oral Biology and Periodontology and a postgraduate degree in Surgical and Prosthetic Implantology from the university of Paris VII. He has taught at the Implantology department of the university of Paris VII as a visiting practitioner.
He is regularly invited to conferences and is involved in clinical research principally related to immediate loading and bone grafting. In addition to national and international publications, he is the author of a book on sinus grafts and has co-written a book on bone grafts.
Since its creation in 2003, he runs the Training Institute for Advanced Implant Surgery (IFCIA). Besides his research and training activities, he undertakes a private practice limited to Periodontology and Implantology.
In addition, he is expert at the Paris Court of Appeal.
Dey Daly Dorra
A retrospective study on 1592 consecutively performed operations in one private referral clinic. Part I: Early inflammation and early implant failures
Background: Few large-scale follow-up studies are reported on routine implant treatment.
Purpose: To report retrospective data on early inflammatory and early implant failures in a large number of routine patients at one private referral clinic.
Le terme « urgence » décrit la survenue d’un
phénomène aigüe douloureux nécessitant l’établissement d’un diagnostic précis pour la mise en place d’un traitement rapide et adéquat. Ce dernier
point est particulièrement important lorsqu’il s’agit
d’une urgence parodontale, où l’algie gingivale est
souvent associée à des atteintes tissulaires étendues avec un risque d’aggravation élevé. Parmi les
maladies parodontales, l’abcès parodontal et les
maladies parodontales nécrotiques constituent
les motifs de consultation en urgence les plus fréquents. Néanmoins, même si leur prévalence est
faible, certaines maladies gingivales non induites
par de la plaque dentaire sont également caractérisées par une douleur intense, qui au-delà des répercussions au niveau parodontal, peuvent parfois
compromettre considérablement l’état de santé
général du patient.
Auteur : Sylvie Pereira
A retrospective study on 1592 consecutively performed operations in one private referral clinic. Part II: Peri-implantitis and implant failures
It is reasonable to assume that both patient follow-up compliance as well as implant survival/success rates could be expected to be higher when reporting results from small, well controlled prospective efficacy studies, as compared to results from large, retrospective effectiveness studies, based on routine clinical performance. Thus, data using patients and dentists that are enthusiastic pioneers when using new clinical protocols or take part in prospective studies where the follow- up examinations per se become important parts of the treatment may result into better clinical results and higher follow-up compliance than following up patients in more routine situations. This assumption could be supported by comparing literature reviews on for example, implant surgical loading protocols based on studies comprising only prospective randomized studies6 with reviews based on both prospective and retrospective studies, indicating better and smaller differences between results when using prospective study protocols.