Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Influence of clinician gender, age, and geographic work location on the relative rankings of risk factors for biological complications with dental implant therapy


      Statement of problem

      Clinician perceptions of risk factors influencing biologic complications with dental implants are poorly understood but are relevant to how clinicians manage conversations with patients seeking dental implant therapy.


      The purpose of this clinician survey was to assess the relative ranking of biologic risk factors with dental implants identified via the history, clinical examination, and clinical decisions and postimplant placement findings.

      Materials and methods

      A 10-item survey instrument was tested, refined, and distributed to past participants of the Future Leaders in Prosthodontics (FLIP) workshop series asking for their opinion on the relative ranking of commonly identified risk factors in the areas of patient history, clinical examination, and clinical decisions and postimplant placement findings. Descriptive statistics and frequency tables were developed to identify age groupings, geographic work location, and gender. Group differences with respect to risk factor rankings were identified by using Kruskal-Wallis H tests, and, if significant, paired comparisons were conducted using the Mann-Whitney U test with adjustments for Type I error (α=.05).


      Significant differences were found by gender, age, and geographic work location. Women viewed “implant placement in site of previous implant loss” (P=.013) and “treated moderate or severe chronic periodontitis” (P=.021) as having significantly greater relative importance than did men, yet men ranked “implant position closer than 1.5 mm from adjacent tooth” (P=.023), “currently using selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor drugs (SSRI)” (P=.001), and “heavy plaque index (PI>50%)” (P=.023) as having significantly greater relative importance than did women. Significant differences were found by geographic work location of practice with respondents from Australasia viewing “treatment plan includes prostheses that limit access for cleaning resulting in an increase in bacterial load” as having greater relative importance than did respondents from Africa (P<.001) and from South America (P<.001). Respondents from South America viewed “implant lacks 2.0 mm of attached tissue around implants” as having greater relative importance than did respondents from Australasia (P<.002) or Asia (P<.001).


      Clinicians viewed the relative importance of risk factors for biologic complications with dental implants differently, and those differences varied by clinicians' age, gender, and geographic location of practice.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • American Dental Association
        Code of ethics.
        (Available at:)
        • Nobles K.P.
        • Janorkar A.V.
        • Williamson R.S.
        Surface modifications to enhance osseointegration-resulting material properties and biological responses.
        J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 19 April 2021; ([Epub ahead of print])
        • Buser D.
        • Sennerby L.
        • De Bruyn H.
        Modern implant dentistry based on osseointegration: 50 years of progress, current trends and open questions.
        Periodontol 2000. 2017; 73: 7-21
        • Geisinger M.L.
        • Calvert Grosso K.
        • Kaur M.
        • Abou Arraj R.V.
        • Basma H.
        • Ogdon D.
        • et al.
        Clinical decision making for primary peri-implantitis prevention: practical applications.
        Clin Adv Periodontics. 2021; 11: 43-53
        • Naveau A.
        • Shinmyouzu K.
        • Moore C.
        • Avivi-Arber L.
        • Jokerst J.
        • Koka S.
        Etiology and measurement of peri-implant crestal bone loss (CBL).
        J Clin Med. 2019; 8: 166
        • French D.
        • Grandin H.M.
        • Ofec R.
        Retrospective cohort study of 4,591 dental implants: analysis of risk indicators for bone loss and prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis.
        J Periodontol. 2019; 90: 691-700
        • Klinge B.
        • Meyle J.
        • Working Group 2
        Peri-implant tissue destruction. The Third EAO Consensus Conference 2012.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23 Suppl 6: 108-110
        • Ghoneim A.
        • Yu B.
        • Lawrence H.
        • Glogauer M.
        • Shankardass K.
        • Quiñonez C.
        What influences the clinical decision-making of dentists? A cross-sectional study.
        PLoS One. 2020; 15: e0233652
        • Koka S.
        • Eckert S.E.
        • Choi Y.G.
        • Montori V.M.
        Clinical decision-making practices among a subset of North American prosthodontists.
        Int J Prosthodont. 2007; 20: 60-68
        • Tenny S.
        • Varacallo M.
        Evidence based medicine (EBM).
        in: StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing, Treasure Island, FL2020
        • Pauley K.
        • Flin R.
        • Yule S.
        • Youngson G.
        Surgeons’ intraoperative decision making and risk management.
        Am J Surg. 2011; 202: 375-381
        • Zilbert N.
        • Murnaghan L.
        • Gallinger S.
        • Regehr G.
        • Moulton C.A.
        Taking a chance or playing it safe. Reframing risk assessment within the surgeon’s comfort zone.
        Ann Surg. 2015; 262: 253-259
        • Curtis D.A.
        • Lin G.H.
        • Fishman A.
        • Sadowsky S.J.
        • Daubert D.M.
        • Kapila Y.
        • et al.
        Patient-centered risk assessment in implant treatment planning.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019; 34: 506-520
        • Curtis D.A.
        • Sadowsky S.J.
        How should we communicate implant treatment risk to a patient?.
        J Am Dent Assoc. 2019; 150: 481-483
        • Do T.A.
        • Le H.S.
        • Shen Y.W.
        • Huang H.L.
        • Fuh L.J.
        Risk factors related to late failure of dental implant-a systematic review of recent studies.
        Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; 17: 3931
        • Tukey J.W.
        Some thoughts on clinical trials, especially problems of multiplicity.
        Science. 1977; 198: 679-684
        • Jemt T.
        • Olsson M.
        • Renouard F.
        • Stenport V.
        • Friberg B.
        Early implant failures related to individual surgeons: an analysis covering 11,074 operations performed during 28 years.
        Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2016; 18: 861-872
        • Mather M.
        • Lighthall N.R.
        Both risk and reward are processed differently in decisions made under stress.
        Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2012; 21: 36-41
        • Smith M.G.
        • Witte M.
        • Rocha S.
        • Basner M.
        Effectiveness of incentives and follow-up on increasing survey response rates and participation in field studies.
        BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019; 19: 230