Patient‐reported oral hygiene and implant outcomes in general dental practice

Cheung, Monique Charlene; Hopcraft, Matthew; Darby, Ivan

doi:10.1111/adj.12806

Cited by 20 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…No significant differences were found between bruxism and implant failure. Although this study showed that patients with a history of periodontal disease did not present a higher level of implant failure compared to patients without a history of periodontal disease, studies with a larger sample size have suggested that periodontal disease is a risk factor for implant failure [21,22]. Our study did not find any statistically significant differences between patients that smoked <10/>10 cigarettes a day with implant failure and survival.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 80%

“…On the one hand, it has been shown that among patients receiving sinus lifts, guided bone regenerations, splits, or bone grafts among other bone regeneration techniques, the success rate of fitted implants is similar to implants placed into native bone and close to 96.4% [12][13][14]. In other matters, a range of investigations have shown that the patient's systemic condition, including diabetes [15], hypertension [16], osteoporosis [17], allergies [18,19], smoking [20], periodontitis [21], and different habits (oral hygiene [22] or parafunctions [23] among others), is a risk factor for treatment with implants [2,4,24,25], particularly when not controlled.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Retrospective Study of Biohorizons® Implants Placed by Postgraduate Students at the University of Barcelona

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study aimed to evaluate the survival and failure rate, in the short- and medium-term, in addition to its relationship with risk factors, in implants placed by postgraduate students of the Master of Medicine, Surgery, and Oral Implantology course from the University of Barcelona. The study was designed including 192 patients with 422 implants placed between 2015 and 2018. Variables of implant failure were evaluated and related. Failure was split into early failure and late failure. Qualitative data were compared using the chi-squared test, taking p ≤ 0.05 as a significant value. The comparison of quantitative variables was carried out using the Student’s t-test for independent samples. The survival rate in a period of 6 months to 3 years was 97.87%. The mean age of the patients was (54.5 ± 13), and the largest number of implants were placed in the 51–60 age range. The failure rate was 2.13% (N = 9), 6 failed early and 3 failed after definitive prosthetic loading, with a p value < 0.0001. When comparing the failures according to their location in the anterior/posterior sector of the arch, the anterior sector showed statistically significant results (p = 0.027). Failed implants had a statistically significant relationship when they were placed in the anterior sector and were performed in the early stage.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 80%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retrospective Study of Biohorizons® Implants Placed by Postgraduate Students at the University of Barcelona

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to Valles et al [ 56 ], the implants were placed in the edentulous site 0.5 mm below the bone crest as fixtures placed in a subcrestal position can have less marginal bone loss changes when compared with implants equicrestally placed. At the end of the surgical procedure, each patient was placed in a professional oral hygiene program every 4 months to remove plaque, which is considered as a primary etiological factor in the development of peri-implant disease and, consequently, marginal bone loss [ 57 , 58 , 59 ]. Marginal bone resorption was evaluated by comparing externally connected implants (group A) with internally connected implants (group B).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Marginal Bone Loss Compared in Internal and External Implant Connections: Retrospective Clinical Study at 6-Years Follow-Up

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to assess and compare the marginal bone loss between two different categories of implants (Winsix, Biosafin, Ancona, Italy) having the same diameter and belonging to the Torque Type® (TT®) line, in the internal hexagon version (TTi, Group A) and in the external hexagon configuration (TTx, Group B). Patients with one or more straight implants (insertion parallel to the occlusal plane) in the molar and premolar regions in association with tooth extraction at least 4 months prior to implant insertion, who have a fixture diameter of 3.8 mm, who followed up for at least 6 years, and whose radiographic records were available were enrolled in this study. Depending on implant connections (externally or internally), the sample was divided into groups A and B. For externally connected implants (66), the marginal resorption was 1.1 ± 0.17 mm. The subgroup of single and bridge implants showed no statistically significant differences with a marginal bone resorption of 1.07 ± 0.15 mm and 1.1 ± 0.17 mm, respectively. Internally connected implants (69) showed an overall marginal resorption of 0.91 ± 0.17 mm, while the subgroup of single and bridge implants showed resorption of 0.90 ± 0.19 mm and 0.90 ± 0.17 mm, respectively, with no statistically significant differences. According to the obtained results, internally connected implants showed less marginal bone resorption than externally connected implants.

show abstract

“…General dentists claim that they play an important role in the oral health care of patients with dental implants, but their clinical practice does not always bear this out (Cheung et al, 2021). Studies show that patients who only use a toothbrush for oral care have a higher risk of developing dental implant complications than those who use additional oral care products (Hopcraft et al, 2021).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pacientų informuotumas apie dantų implantų priežiūrą ir sąsajas su burnos priežiūros įpročiais ir burnos sveikata

Kuizinaitė,

Samoilova,

Venevičienė

2023

Mokslo Taikomieji Tyrimai Lietuvos Kolegijose

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many patients do not perform adequate individual oral hygiene after dental implantation due to the formation of inappropriate habits or a lack of knowledge about implant care (Abbasi Begum Meer Rownaq Ali et al., 2023). For these reasons, soft and hard plaques accumulate, gingivitis forms, and alveolar bone dissolves. Complications of the dental implant, perimucositis and periimplantitis, may begin, resulting in the loss of the dental implant (Rudeejaraswan et al., 2023). Informing the patient and changing bad habits are very important factors for preserving the dental implant. General dentists claim that they play an important role in the oral health care of patients with dental implants, but their clinical practice does not always bear this out (Cheung et al., 2021). Studies show that patients who only use a toothbrush for oral care have a higher risk of developing dental implant complications than those who use additional oral care products (Hopcraft et al., 2021). To reach the research aim, a qualitative research method was chosen, a written survey by filling in a questionnaire. An examination using simplified OHI-s and GI indices was also applied, with the help of which the informant’s oral hygiene and gingivitis conditions were determined. 10 participants took part in the research. After analysing the awareness of the research participants about the care of dental implants and the connections with oral health, it was found that the knowledge of four informants about the care of dental implants is good or average. Still, the state of oral hygiene is satisfactory, and they have moderate gingivitis. Five informants have satisfactory knowledge of dental implant care, of which three participants have poor oral hygiene and moderate or severe gingivitis. The rest have satisfactory oral hygiene and moderate gingivitis. Analysing the relationship between informants’ oral hygiene habits and oral health, the habits of six study participants are satisfactory, resulting in satisfactory oral hygiene and moderate gingivitis. The study results show that people with dental implants lack information about individual and professional oral hygiene. Oral care professionals should pay more attention to instructing patients. Based on scientific research, it can be stated that the oral hygiene of informants with dental implants is different. Some informants use additional oral care products and regularly visit oral care specialists, so their oral hygiene is good, while others do not have enough motivation to pay more attention to oral hygiene.

show abstract

Patient‐reported oral hygiene and implant outcomes in general dental practice

Cited by 20 publications

References 65 publications

Retrospective Study of Biohorizons® Implants Placed by Postgraduate Students at the University of Barcelona

Retrospective Study of Biohorizons® Implants Placed by Postgraduate Students at the University of Barcelona

Marginal Bone Loss Compared in Internal and External Implant Connections: Retrospective Clinical Study at 6-Years Follow-Up

Pacientų informuotumas apie dantų implantų priežiūrą ir sąsajas su burnos priežiūros įpročiais ir burnos sveikata

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About