Evaluation of the Attitudes of Dentists in Isfahan toward Implant Systems, Their Familiarity and Satisfaction and Failure of Systems
Document Type : مقالههای پژوهشی
Authors
1 Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran.
2 Post Graduate, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
10.48305/v0i0.1347
Abstract
Introduction: Considering the increasing rate of dental implant use, many general dental practitioners ask the question which system has the highest frequency of use and satisfaction rate so that they can decide on the use of one superior system, using other dentists' experience. This study evaluated dentists' experience in relation to the various implant systems.
Materials & Methods: The present descriptive-analytical/cross-sectional study was carried out with the use of a questionnaire with 40 questions on different aspects of implant treatment. The questionnaire was handed in to 100 dental practitioners working in Isfahan, consisting of 51 general dentists, 21 prosthodontists and 28 oral and maxillofacial surgeons and periodontists. Data were analyzed with Chi-squared and Kruskal-Wallis tests (α = 0.05).
Results: There was no significant difference between general dentists and specialists in the selection of different system (p value = 0.417) and DIO system was the most frequently used system. Prosthodontists were significantly more successful in satisfying patients compared to surgeons, and surgeon were more successful than general dentists (p value = 0.02). There was no significant difference between dentists in relation to the most common failure reason (p value = 0.817); 88% of dentists believed that financial problem was the main reason in implant treatment rejection by the patients. Most of the dentists (65%) believed that patient satisfaction rate was moderate.
Conclusion: DIO was the dominant implant system used due to its more favorable cost, quality and services.
Key words: Dental implant, Dentist, Questionnaire.
Materials & Methods: The present descriptive-analytical/cross-sectional study was carried out with the use of a questionnaire with 40 questions on different aspects of implant treatment. The questionnaire was handed in to 100 dental practitioners working in Isfahan, consisting of 51 general dentists, 21 prosthodontists and 28 oral and maxillofacial surgeons and periodontists. Data were analyzed with Chi-squared and Kruskal-Wallis tests (α = 0.05).
Results: There was no significant difference between general dentists and specialists in the selection of different system (p value = 0.417) and DIO system was the most frequently used system. Prosthodontists were significantly more successful in satisfying patients compared to surgeons, and surgeon were more successful than general dentists (p value = 0.02). There was no significant difference between dentists in relation to the most common failure reason (p value = 0.817); 88% of dentists believed that financial problem was the main reason in implant treatment rejection by the patients. Most of the dentists (65%) believed that patient satisfaction rate was moderate.
Conclusion: DIO was the dominant implant system used due to its more favorable cost, quality and services.
Key words: Dental implant, Dentist, Questionnaire.
1. Chang M, Odman PA, Wennstrom JL, Andersson B. Esthetic outcome of implant-supported single-tooth replacements assessed by the patient and by prosthodontists. Int J Prosthodont 1999; 2(4): 35-41.
2. Chang M, Wennström JL, Odman P, Andersson B. Implant supported single-tooth replacements compared to contralateral natural teeth. Crown and soft tissue dimensions. Clin Oral Implants Res 1999; 10(3): 185-94.
3. Nadimi F. Satisfactory evaluation of single implant inserted in anterior maxilla area in patient who treated in Isfahan school of dentistry. [Thesis for DDS]. Isfahan, Iran: School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences; 2008. [In Persian].
4. Derks J, Håkansson J, Wennström JL, Tomasi C, Larsson M, Berglundh T. Effectiveness of implant therapy analyzed in a Swedish population: early and late implant loss. J Dent Res 2015; 94(3 Suppl): 44S-51S.
5. Derks J, Håkansson J, Wennström JL, Klinge B, Berglundh T. Patient-reported outcomes of dental implant therapy in a large randomly selected sample. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015; 26(5): 586-91.
6. Narby B, Kronström M, Söderfeldt B, Palmqvist S. Changes in attitudes toward desire for implant treatment: a longitudinal study of a middle-aged and older Swedish population. Int J Prosthodont 2008; 21(6): 481-5.
7. Caplanis N, Kan JY, Lozada JL. Implant dentistry education for the practicing dentist. J Calif Dent Assoc 2001; 29(11): 757-64.
8. Klokkevold PR. Implant education in the dental curriculum. J Calif Dent Assoc 2001; 29(11): 747-55.
9. Engquist B, Bergendal T, Kallus T, Linden U. A retrospective multicenter evaluation of osseointegrated implants supporting overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1988; 3(2): 129-34.
10. Akeredolu PA, Adeyemo WL, Gbotolorun OM, James O, Olorunfemi BO, Arotiba GT. Knowledge, attitude, and practice of dental implantology in Nigeria. Implant Dent 2007; 16(1): 110-8.
11. Peled M, Ardekian L, Tagger-Green N, Gutmacher Z, Machtei EE. Dental implants in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a clinical study. Implant Dent 2003; 12(2): 116-22.
12. Andersson B, Odman P, Lindvall AM, Brånemark PI. Surgical and prosthodontic training of general practitioners for single tooth implants: A study of treatments performed at four general practitioners' offices and at a specialist clinic after 2 years. J Oral Rehabil 1995; 22(8): 543-8.
13. Esfandiari S, Lund JP, Thomason JM, Dufresne E, Kobayashi T, Dubois M, et al. Can general dentists produce successful implant overdentures with minimal training? J Dent 2006; 34(10): 796-801.
14. Ng PC, Pow EH, Ching SH, Lo EC, Chow TW. Dental implant practice among Hong Kong general dental practitioners in 2004 and 2008. Implant Dent 2011; 20(1): 95-105.
)