Abstract
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.
Purpose
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).
Results
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).
Conclusions
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 accessOne-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:
Subscribe to Journal of Prosthetic DentistryAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Code of ethics.(Available at:)https://www.ada.org/en/about-the-ada/principles-of-ethics-code-of-professional-conductDate: 2020Date accessed: May 23, 2021
- 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])https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.34835
- Modern implant dentistry based on osseointegration: 50 years of progress, current trends and open questions.Periodontol 2000. 2017; 73: 7-21
- Clinical decision making for primary peri-implantitis prevention: practical applications.Clin Adv Periodontics. 2021; 11: 43-53
- Etiology and measurement of peri-implant crestal bone loss (CBL).J Clin Med. 2019; 8: 166
- 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
- Peri-implant tissue destruction. The Third EAO Consensus Conference 2012.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23 Suppl 6: 108-110
- What influences the clinical decision-making of dentists? A cross-sectional study.PLoS One. 2020; 15: e0233652
- Clinical decision-making practices among a subset of North American prosthodontists.Int J Prosthodont. 2007; 20: 60-68
- Evidence based medicine (EBM).in: StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing, Treasure Island, FL2020
- Surgeons’ intraoperative decision making and risk management.Am J Surg. 2011; 202: 375-381
- Taking a chance or playing it safe. Reframing risk assessment within the surgeon’s comfort zone.Ann Surg. 2015; 262: 253-259
- Patient-centered risk assessment in implant treatment planning.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019; 34: 506-520
- How should we communicate implant treatment risk to a patient?.J Am Dent Assoc. 2019; 150: 481-483
- Risk factors related to late failure of dental implant-a systematic review of recent studies.Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; 17: 3931
- Some thoughts on clinical trials, especially problems of multiplicity.Science. 1977; 198: 679-684
- 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
- Both risk and reward are processed differently in decisions made under stress.Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2012; 21: 36-41
- Effectiveness of incentives and follow-up on increasing survey response rates and participation in field studies.BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019; 19: 230
Article info
Publication history
Published online: August 04, 2021
Publication stage
In Press Corrected ProofFootnotes
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Identification
Copyright
© 2021 by the Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.
