Assil A Russell, Andrew Tawse-Smith, Jonathan M Broadbent, Jonathan W Leichter
{"title":"Peri-implantitis diagnosis and treatment by New Zealand periodontists and oral maxillofacial surgeons.","authors":"Assil A Russell, Andrew Tawse-Smith, Jonathan M Broadbent, Jonathan W Leichter","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to investigate the understanding, diagnosis and management of peri-implantitis by New Zealand periodontists and oral maxillofacial surgeons (OMFS).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Telephone interviews (in combination with a postal and electronic survey) were conducted of all 25 periodontists and 32 OMFS listed as specialists on the New Zealand Dental Register. A seven item multi-choice and short answer questionnaire was used to investigate: their definition of peri-implantitis; the number of annual referrals received in their practice for this condition; their diagnostic, preventive and treatment strategies for peri-implantitis; and their perception of the role of general dental practitioners in its management.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The participation rate was 84.6%. Most respondents defined peri-implantitis as a disease of multifactorial aetiology that leads to destruction of the bone supporting an implant. The average number of cases seen annually differed between periodontists (11 cases/year) and OMFS (4 cases/year). The criteria used by the respondents to diagnose peri-implantitis included increased probing depths and radiographic evidence of bone loss. Each type of specialist used mechanical debridement for treatment, but a higher proportion of OMFS performed surgical procedures as treatment. The prevention strategies used smoking cessation advice and ensuring good plaque control. All respondents agreed that peri-implantitis is an important disease that can lead to implant failure, and all acknowledged the role of general dental practitioners in diagnosis, referral for treatment and long-term implant maintenance.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The definition, diagnostic criteria and management strategies used by New Zealand specialists are generally consistent with those found in the literature. No evidence-based, gold standard treatment protocol for peri-implantitis has been identified in the literature, and New Zealand specialists use a range of treatment modalities.</p>","PeriodicalId":76703,"journal":{"name":"The New Zealand dental journal","volume":"110 1","pages":"6-10"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The New Zealand dental journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the understanding, diagnosis and management of peri-implantitis by New Zealand periodontists and oral maxillofacial surgeons (OMFS).
Design: Telephone interviews (in combination with a postal and electronic survey) were conducted of all 25 periodontists and 32 OMFS listed as specialists on the New Zealand Dental Register. A seven item multi-choice and short answer questionnaire was used to investigate: their definition of peri-implantitis; the number of annual referrals received in their practice for this condition; their diagnostic, preventive and treatment strategies for peri-implantitis; and their perception of the role of general dental practitioners in its management.
Results: The participation rate was 84.6%. Most respondents defined peri-implantitis as a disease of multifactorial aetiology that leads to destruction of the bone supporting an implant. The average number of cases seen annually differed between periodontists (11 cases/year) and OMFS (4 cases/year). The criteria used by the respondents to diagnose peri-implantitis included increased probing depths and radiographic evidence of bone loss. Each type of specialist used mechanical debridement for treatment, but a higher proportion of OMFS performed surgical procedures as treatment. The prevention strategies used smoking cessation advice and ensuring good plaque control. All respondents agreed that peri-implantitis is an important disease that can lead to implant failure, and all acknowledged the role of general dental practitioners in diagnosis, referral for treatment and long-term implant maintenance.
Conclusion: The definition, diagnostic criteria and management strategies used by New Zealand specialists are generally consistent with those found in the literature. No evidence-based, gold standard treatment protocol for peri-implantitis has been identified in the literature, and New Zealand specialists use a range of treatment modalities.