Abstract This paper considers issues that relate to staff recruitment, staff development and global mobility of dental academics. Published literature, which has a North American bias, is reviewed. Recommendations, which may be applicable world‐wide, are made to address evident and pertinent areas of concern in terms of the availability of quality dental teaching staff in dental teaching institutions so as to sustain the global dental academic enterprise at appropriately high levels of achievement.
The Minamata Convention, a global legally binding instrument (treaty) on mercury, has been the catalyst for the emerging agenda on global dental materials research. If the current and future challenges of oral health maintenance and healing on a global scale are to be met, a logical and effective research agenda for the discovery and introduction of new, environmentally sustainable, dental materials must be developed through a coordinated effort involving materials scientists, dental clinicians, representatives of industry, members of regional and national regulatory bodies, and advocacy from research organizations. For universal impact, this agenda should be created with awareness of several important ongoing initiatives, such as the WHO non-communicable diseases action plan, the UN sustainable development agenda, and the IADR Global Oral Health In Inequalities Research Agenda (GOHIRA). A significant contributor to this cause is the FDI and its membership, who, through their Vision 2020 initiative, acknowledge their role and responsibility in globally preventing and managing dental disease and providing leadership to the profession in terms of information dissemination and affecting change. Dental researchers also have an obligation to advocate for appropriate funding to match the identified research needs, thus enhancing the possibility that key decision-makers will provide the needed support to achieve the research agenda agreed upon by this diverse group of stakeholders.
T he purpose of this study was to evaluate the early wound healing events of bone around press‐fit titanium implants inserted with and without the concurrent application of a combination of platelet‐derived growth factor (PDGF) and insulin‐like growth factor (IGF‐I). Nine months prior to implant placement all mandibular premolar teeth were extracted in 8 beagle dogs. Subsequently, 40 specially manufactured titanium implants with 2 transverse holes in the apical section were press fit into precise recipient sites in the dogs' mandibles. The dogs were sacrificed at 7 and 21 days following implant placement yielding 12 PDGF‐B/IGF‐I treated and 8 control (placebo gel or non‐treated) implants for each observation period. Coded undecalcified sections were analyzed for: 1) percentage of implant surface in contact with new bone; 2) percentage of peri‐implant space filled with new bone; and 3) percentage of implant hole filled with new bone. An analysis of variance was used to determine significant differences among the treatment groups. At 7 days, the percentage of bone fill in the peri‐implant spaces and the percentage of implant surface in contact with new bone were both significantly increased in PDGF‐B/IGF‐I treated sites ( P < 0.01 for both groups). There was < 1.5% fill of the implant holes in both treated and control sites (no significant differences). At 21 days the percentage of bone fill in the peri‐implant spaces was significantly increased in the PDGF‐B/IGF‐I treated sites ( P < 0.01). No significant differences were detected at this time in the percentage of implant hole filled with new bone nor in the percentage of implant surface in contact with new bone. However, 10 of the 12 PDGF‐B/IGF‐I treated implants exhibited a greater amount of new bone within the implant holes compared to the means of the placebo gel and non‐treated implants. These findings suggest that the PDGF‐B/IGF‐I combination can stimulate bone regeneration around press‐fit titanium implants. In this model the effect appears prolonged in areas where larger bone defects exist, such as in the peri‐implant marrow spaces. J Periodontol 1991; 62:710–716 .
'/%3e%3c/defs%3e%3cpath fill='%23012169' d='M0 0h10080v5040H0z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='.6' d='m0 0 6 3m0-3L0 3' clip-path='url(%23b)' transform='scale(840)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23e4002b' stroke-width='.4' d='m0 0 6 3m0-3L0 3' clip-path='url(%23c)' transform='scale(840)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='840' d='M2520 0v2520M0 1260h5040'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23e4002b' stroke-width='504' d='M2520 0v2520M0 1260h5040'/%3e%3cg fill='%23fff'%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23d' x='2520' y='3780'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' x='7560' y='4200'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' x='6300' y='2205'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' x='7560' y='840'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' x='8680' y='1869'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23e' x='8064' y='2730'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)