Serbest Diş Hekimlerinin İmplant Tedavisine Yaklaşımları: Anket Çalışması

Amaç: Günümüzde diş eksikliklerinin telafisinde implant uygulamaları yaygın bir şekilde tercih edilmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı serbest diş hekimlerinin implant uygulamalarında kullandıkları teknikleri, yaptıkları planlamaları ve komplikasyonlarla karşılaştıklarında buldukları çözüm yollarını değerlendirmektir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bu çalışmada 125 uzman olmayan diş hekimine ulaşılmış ve implant uygulaması hakkında 28 sorudan oluşan anket uygulanmıştır. Planlama, diagnoz teknikleri, kullanılan ölçü tekniği ve materyalleri, kullandıkları implant markaları, karşılaştıkları komplikasyonlar, kullandıkları üst yapı malzemeleri sorgulanmıştır. Bulgular: Katılımcıların implant üstü protetik tedaviler için tercih oranları dört implant destekli sabit protezler için %37,6; altı implant destekli sabit protezler için %19,1; 2 implant destekli hareketli protetik tedavilerde ball ataçman tipi için %29,8; locator ataçman için %13 olarak bulunmuştur. İmplant üstü sabit restorasyonlarda simante restorasyonlar vidalı sistemlere göre daha sık tercih edilmektedir. Diş hekimleri implant tedavisinin tanı ve planında en sık (%35) panoramik röntgenlerden destek almaktadır. İmplant üstü protetik restorasyonlar için diş hekimlerinin %71'i metal seramik restorasyonları tercih ederken; %26,7’si zirkonyum destekli restorasyonları tercih etmektedirler. İmmediat yükleme prosedürünü çalışmamıza katılan hekimlerden sadece %14’ü tercih ettiğini bildirmişlerdir. İmplant üstü restorasyonların ölçüsünün alınmasında hem açık hem de kapalı kaşık tekniklerinin kullanıldığı görülmüştür. Hekimlerin %76 oranında 8.5 mm ve daha uzun implantları tercih ettikleri ve %73 oranında çapı 3.7 ve 4.2 mm arasındaki implantları kullandıkları görülmüştür. Bu çalışmada en çok peri-implantitis komplikasyonu ile karşılaşıldığı gözlenmiştir. İmplant tedavisi uygulanan hastaların sıklıkla 6 ay- 1 yılda bir kontrole çağırıldığı görülmüştür. Sonuç: Çalışmamızda hekimlerin vaka sınıflamasına göre farklı tedavi seçenekleri ve materyalleri seçtikleri görülmüştür. Protetik tedavi planlanması sırasında; implant destekli sabit protezler daha çok tercih edilmektedi

Implant Treatment Approaches of General Dental Practitioners: A Survey Approac

Background: Nowadays implant treatments are widely preferred in compensating tooth deficiencies. The aim of this study is to evaluate the technique, treatment plans and the solutions that have been used when there is a complication. Methods: In this study, 125 general dental practitioners were reached and a questionnaire consisting of 28 questions about implant application was applied. Planning, diagnostic techniques, impression techniques and materials used, complications and the prosthetic materials they used were questioned. Results: 37.6% of participants were preferred four-implant supported fixed prosthesis, 19.1% of participants were preferred six-implant supported fixed prosthesis, 29.8% of participants were preferred two-implant supported removable prosthesis with ball attachment and 13% of participants were preferred two-implant supported removable prosthesis with locator type attachment. Cemented restorations are preferred more often than screw-retained restorations in implant- supported fixed prosthetic treatment. Dentists prefer panoramic x-rays most often (35%) in the diagnosis and the treatment plan. For prosthetic restorations, 71% of dentists prefer metal- ceramic restorations whereas zirconia supported restorations are preferred by 26.7% of them. It has been reported that only 14% of dentists prefer immediate implant loading after implant placement. Both open and closed tray impression techniques have been used. It was observed that 76% of the dentists preferred 8.5 mm and longer implants and 73% used implants between 3.7 and 4.2 mm in diameter. Peri-implantitis is one of the most common inflammatory complications in this study. Patients treated with implant therapy were often referred to control every 6 months-1 year. Conclusion: Based on the findings of this study, it was observed that the clinicians chose different treatment options and materials according to the case classification. The implant- supported fixed prostheses are more preferred during prosthetic treatment planning..

PDF

___

1. Stanford CM. Application of oral implants to the general dental practice, J Am Dent Assoc. 2005;136(8):1092-100.
2. Gupta S, Patil N, Solanki J, Singh R, Laller S. Oral Implant Imaging: A Review, Malays J Med Sci. 2015; 22:7-17.
3. Nagarajan A, Perumalsamy R, Thyagarajan R, Namasivayam A. Diagnostic imaging for dental implant therapy, J Clin Imaging Sci. 2014; 4:4-14.
4. Naitoh M, Kawamata A, Iida H, Ariji E. Cross-sectional imaging of the jaws for dental implant treatment: accuracy of linear tomography using a panoramic machine in comparison with reformatted computed tomography, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2002 Jan- Feb;17(1):107-12.
5. Schropp L, Wenzel A, Kostopoulos L. Impact of conventional tomography on prediction of the appropriate implant size, Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2001; 92(4): 458-463.
6. Bayramoğlu E, Özkan YK, Yıldız C. Comparison of marginal and internal fit of press-on-metal and conventional ceramic systems for three- and four-unit implant-supported partial fixed dental prostheses: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2015 Jul;114(1):52-8.
7. Payne AG, Solomons YF. The prosthodontic maintenance requirements of mandibular mucosa- and implant-supported overdentures: a review of the literature, Int J Proshodont. 2000;13: 238-43.
8. Zitzmann NU, Marinello CP. A review of clinical and technical considerations for fixed and removable implant prostheses in the edentulous mandible, Int J Proshodont. 2002;15: 65-72.
9. Brånemark PI, Engstrand P, Ohrnell LO, Gröndahl K, Nilsson P, Hagberg K, Darle C, Lekholm U. Brånemark Novum: a new treatment concept for rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible. Preliminary results from a prospective clinical follow-up study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 1999;1(1):2-16.
10.Gross MD. Occlusion in implant dentistry. A review of the literature of prosthetic determinants and current concepts. Aust Dent J. 2008;53(1):60-8.
11.Malo P, Rangert B, Nobre M. All-on-4 immediate- function concept with Brånemark System implants for completely edentulous maxillae: a 1-year retrospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2005;7(1):88-941.
12.Del’Acqua MA, Chávez AM, Compagnoni MA, Molo Fde A Jr. Accuracy of impression techniques for an implant-supported prosthesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010; 25:715-21.
13.Jo SH, Kim KI, Seo JM, Song KY, Park JM, Ahn SG Ahn. Effect of impression coping and implant angulation on the accuracy of implant impressions:an in vitro study. J Adv Prosthodont. 2010; 2:128-33.
14.Choi JH, Lim YJ, Yim SH, Kim CW. Evaluation of the accuracy of implant-level impression techniques for internal-connection implant prostheses in paralel and divergent models. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007; 22(5):761-8.
15.Lee SJ, Macarthur RX 4th, Gallucci GO. An evaluation of student and clinician perception of digital and conventional implant impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 110:420-423.
16.Lin WS, Harris BT, Morton D. The use of a scannable impression coping and digital impression technique to fabricate a customized anatomic abutment and zirconia restoration in the esthetic zone. J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 109:187- 191.
17.Albrektsson T, Zarb GA. Determinants of correct clinical reporting, Int J Prosthodont. 1998;11(5):517-21.
18.Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Singh M, Weber HP, Gallucci GO. Success criteria in implant dentistry: a systematic review. J Dent Res. 2012 Mar;91(3):242-8.
19.Cheung MC, Kao PLH, Lee N, Sivathasan D. Interest In Dental İmplantology And Preferences For Implant Therapy: A Survey Of Victorian Dentists, Aust Dent J. 2016;61: 455-463.
20.Gibson RL, Barclay CW. Dental implantology education: a survey of opinion and experience of 106 general dental practitioners, Br Dent J. 2006;201(6):367-70.
21.Murray CM, Thomson WM, Leichter JW. Dental implant use in New Zealand: A 10-year update, N Z Dent J. 2016;112(2):49-54.
22.Hol C, Hellén-Halme K, Torgersen G, Nilsson M, Møystad A. How do dentists use CBCT in dental clinics? A Norwegian nationwide survey, Acta Odontol Scand. 2015;73(3):195-201.
23.Ramakrishnan P, Shafi FM, Subhash A, Kumara A, Chakkarayan J, Vengalath J. A survey on radiographic prescription practices in dental implant assessment among dentists in Kerala, India, Oral Health Dent Manag. 2014;13(3):826- 30.
24.Hyde TP, Craddock HL, Gray JC, Pavitt SH, Hulme C, Godfrey M, Fernandez C, Navarro-Coy N, Dillon S, Wright J, Brown S, Dukanovic G, Brunton PA. A randomised controlled trial of complete denture impression materials, J Dent. 2014;42(8):895-901.
25.Russell AA, Tawse-Smith A, Broadbent JM, Leichter JW. Peri-implantitis diagnosis and treatment by New Zealand periodontists and oral maxillofacial surgeons, N Z Dent J. 2014;110(1):6-10.
26.Lambrecht JT, Cardone E, Kühl S. Status report on dental implantology in Switzerland, Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed. 2010;120(2):133-40
27.Yoshiyuki Hagiwara, Tatsuya Narita, Yohei Shioda, Keisuke Iwasaki, Takayuki Ikeda,Shunsuke Namaki, Thomas J Salinas. Current status of implant prosthetics in Japan: a survey among certified dental lab technicians, Int J Implant Dent. 2015;1:4- 19.
28.Lee SJ, Gallucci GO. Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013; 24:111-115.
29.De La Cruz JE, Funkenbusch PD, Ercoli C, Moss ME, Graser GN, Tallents RH. Verification jigs made of different materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2002; 88:329- 36.
30.Daoudi MF, Setchell DJ, Searson LJ. An evaluation of three implant level impression techniques for single tooth implant. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2004; 12:9- 14.
31.Papaspyridakos P, Benic GI, Hogsett VL, White GS, Lal K, Gallucci GO. Accuracy of implant casts generated with splinted and non-splinted impression techniques for edentulous patients: an optical scanning study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23:676-681.
32.Naconecy MM, Teixeira ER, Shinkai RS, Frasca LC, Cervieri A. Evaluation of the accuracy of 3 transfer techniques for implant-supported prostheses with multiple abutments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004; 19:192-8.
33.Baskai KG. Evaluation of Digital Implant Impressions using an Intra-oral Computerized Scanner (iTero) versus Conventional Implant Impressions: A 3- Dimensional Analysis of Accuracy. Science Faculty of Dentistry University, Thesis for the degree of Masters, 2014, Toronto. (Direct: Hasan ALKUMRU).
34.Lee SJ, Betensky RA, Gianneschi GE, Gallucci GO. Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 26(6):715-9