Clinical practice preferences of Australian and New Zealand practitioners in the implant management of the edentulous mandible

J. Dudley, F. Mughal
{"title":"Clinical practice preferences of Australian and New Zealand practitioners in the implant management of the edentulous mandible","authors":"J. Dudley, F. Mughal","doi":"10.4103/sjos.sjoralsci_9_20","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Mandibular edentulism remains a widespread health burden with a variety of available treatment modalities, but without an accepted single best practice approach. The purpose of the present study was to survey clinical practice preferences of Australian and New Zealand practitioners in the management of patients with edentulous mandibles with a specific focus on the use of dental implants. Materials and Methods: A questionnaire comprising thirty questions was developed and administered online via a unique web link sent to all known Australian and New Zealand general dental and specialist professional membership bodies. Results: Responses received from the members of five of the ten membership bodies constituted 7.35% overall response rate. Respondents who had undertaken implant training and were involved in implant treatment of the edentulous mandible totaled 65.5%. The pattern of referral to specialists for surgical implant placement varied according to the type of prosthesis being constructed. Of 111 respondents, 72% preferred two implants for mandibular implant overdentures (MIODs), whereas 97% of 98 respondents preferred four or more implants for a mandibular fixed complete implant denture. The main reasons for choosing MIOD instead of fixed complete implant denture were cost, patient preference, and available jaw bone. Conclusions: The highest level of education in implant dentistry varied significantly between respondents and was potentially reflected in the wide variety of reported treatment approaches. Even within a specific implant prosthesis type, there was no universally accepted modality of management. Future research should focus on alternative survey strategies for obtaining important data representative of the total practicing population.","PeriodicalId":32335,"journal":{"name":"Saudi Journal of Oral Sciences","volume":"1 1","pages":"156 - 163"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Saudi Journal of Oral Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/sjos.sjoralsci_9_20","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

Introduction: Mandibular edentulism remains a widespread health burden with a variety of available treatment modalities, but without an accepted single best practice approach. The purpose of the present study was to survey clinical practice preferences of Australian and New Zealand practitioners in the management of patients with edentulous mandibles with a specific focus on the use of dental implants. Materials and Methods: A questionnaire comprising thirty questions was developed and administered online via a unique web link sent to all known Australian and New Zealand general dental and specialist professional membership bodies. Results: Responses received from the members of five of the ten membership bodies constituted 7.35% overall response rate. Respondents who had undertaken implant training and were involved in implant treatment of the edentulous mandible totaled 65.5%. The pattern of referral to specialists for surgical implant placement varied according to the type of prosthesis being constructed. Of 111 respondents, 72% preferred two implants for mandibular implant overdentures (MIODs), whereas 97% of 98 respondents preferred four or more implants for a mandibular fixed complete implant denture. The main reasons for choosing MIOD instead of fixed complete implant denture were cost, patient preference, and available jaw bone. Conclusions: The highest level of education in implant dentistry varied significantly between respondents and was potentially reflected in the wide variety of reported treatment approaches. Even within a specific implant prosthesis type, there was no universally accepted modality of management. Future research should focus on alternative survey strategies for obtaining important data representative of the total practicing population.
澳大利亚和新西兰医生对无牙下颌骨种植体治疗的临床实践偏好
下颌骨无牙症仍然是一个广泛的健康负担,有各种可用的治疗方式,但没有一个公认的单一最佳实践方法。本研究的目的是调查澳大利亚和新西兰医生在管理无牙下颌骨患者时的临床实践偏好,特别关注种植体的使用。材料和方法:一份包含30个问题的调查问卷通过一个独特的网络链接发送给所有已知的澳大利亚和新西兰普通牙科和专家专业会员机构。结果:10个会员团体中,5个团体的回应占整体回应率7.35%。接受过种植训练并参与无牙下颌骨种植治疗的回答者占65.5%。转诊到专家进行外科种植体安置的模式根据正在构建的假体类型而有所不同。在111名受访者中,72%的人更喜欢下颌种植覆盖义齿(MIODs)的两种种植体,而98名受访者中97%的人更喜欢下颌固定全种植义齿的四种或更多种植体。选择MIOD代替固定全种植义齿的主要原因是成本、患者偏好和可用的颌骨。结论:受访者中种植牙的最高教育水平差异显著,这可能反映在报道的治疗方法的多样性上。即使在特定的种植体假体类型中,也没有普遍接受的管理方式。未来的研究应侧重于替代调查策略,以获得代表总执业人口的重要数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
审稿时长
30 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信