Summary of 2024 edition

From the lecture you will learn:

• how to correctly qualify a patient for the removal of mineralised deposits
• how to set the tip
• how to work to make the procedure safe and pleasant
• how to avoid the most common errors in working with the scaler.

We associate modern implantology with the year 1966, when Prof. Braenemark began research on intraperiosteal implants. However, trials were already being carried out with razor or subperiosteal implants. The development of modern methods of bone augmentation and soft tissue management has made it possible to place implants in cases of even significant bone loss. The advanced age of the patient and extreme bone loss, as well as the development of modern implant manufacturing techniques, have again led researchers to work on subperiosteal implants, prepared on the basis of CBCT examinations and intraoral scans. Such restorations can be loaded on the day of surgery, eliminating the waiting time needed for bone and implants to engraft.

Possible implantoprosthetic complications occurring during and after treatment of patients with bruxism will be presented. In order to increase the safety of implantoprosthetic reconstructions and to improve the predictability of the reconstructive procedures carried out, additional modern diagnostic methods and a protocol for the management of difficult cases will be presented. The current state of knowledge on the relationship between the occurrence of bruxism and the risk of implantoprosthetic complications will also be updated.

Some errors and treatment failures are due to poor choice of radiological diagnostics. The lecture will demonstrate the drawbacks of imaging (in surgery , implantology, restorative dentistry and prosthodontics) on specific cases, comparing them on other diagnostic images or most accurately: the clinical image. Does radiology cheat? How did it affect the planning and course of treatment, why did some of them end up in Courtrooms. We will not avoid problems, but it is worth minimising them and being able to justify our choice of diagnostics.

‘Implant treatment over the last decades has become a very good, well-studied way of replacing single or multiple missing teeth. Current implant science focuses on achieving the fastest possible healing process and the prevention and treatment of peri-implantitis.th them? Are they worth the price?’
Low- and high-power lasers have a very wide range of uses in the implant treatment process. At the beginning of treatment, we can use them in the osseointegration process, through Low Level Laser Therapy, successively for implant uncovering, soft tissue grafting around implants as well as supportively during the treatment of periimplantitis. Do lasers really give us more options? Will we get better treatment results wi

Since the dawn of time, mankind has lived with exposure to ionising radiation from natural sources, and the human body's defence mechanisms are adapted to combat its harmful effects. However, with the introduction of tests based on ionising radiation and natural radioactivity into the diagnostic arsenal, exposure to radiation from its artificial sources has emerged. The aim of this lecture is to provide up-to-date information on exposure to ionising radiation in dental radiology.
The lecture will present information on natural and artificial sources of radiation, among them dental radiology against the background of medical radiology and nuclear medicine in terms of exposure dose. The individual radiation exposure from, for example, a single intraoral radiograph is very low, however, due to the frequent use of radiological examinations in dentistry, the dose to an individual may be much higher. The ALADA principle should be followed, which states that examinations using ionising radiation are performed at as low a radiation dose as is acceptable from a diagnostic point of view. All referrals for radiological examinations must be justified and the dose optimised.

Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), although not yet the gold standard and first-line examination in dentistry, is very frequently used. When ordering a CBCT examination, the dentist chooses the imaging field, small, medium or large, depending on the clinical needs. According to the guidelines of numerous scientific societies, the smallest possible imaging field should always be chosen in order to reduce the exposure dose to the patient. Limiting the imaging field also means that the dentist focuses on assessing the teeth and their supporting tissues.
However, it is sometimes necessary to use a medium to large imaging field, and thus the diagnostic images obtained include, in addition to the teeth and alveolar processes, other anatomical structures of the craniofacial part, such as the temporal bone, skull base, nasal sinuses, or cervical spine. Pathological changes also occur in these structures, and their detection goes beyond the dentist's knowledge gained in pre- and postgraduate training. The aim of this lecture is to present the pathological changes that can be encountered in large-field imaging CBCT examinations, from a radiologist's point of view.

The temporomandibular joint is one of the regions of interest for dentists of various specialities. X-ray diagnosis of the joint provides important information on the anatomy of the joint, the presence of abnormalities as a result of systemic diseases, as well as those directly related to oral health.
In the first part of the lecture, the principles of performing and interpreting temporomandibular joint examinations using two-dimensional methods such as panoramic X-rays and transcranial projection X-rays in close-up and open positions will be presented. In the following section, three-dimensional X-ray diagnostic methods using cone beam tomography (CBCT) will be discussed. Indications for the use of CBCT with small, medium and large imaging fields will be presented. Examples of temporomandibular joint diagnosis in osteoarthritis, cases of facial asymmetry, congenital cranial defects, conditions qualifying for orthognathic surgery and the appearance of the joint in the course of certain rheumatic diseases will be presented. In addition, the limitations of individual diagnostic methods , which may be derived from the examination technique and patient movement artefacts, will also be discussed. In the final section, the current possibilities of analysing examinations using artificial intelligence algorithms and potential future developments of this technology will be presented.