SERBEST DİŞ HEKİMLERİNİN İMPLANT TEDAVİSİNE YAKLAŞIMLARI

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 2, 303 - 312, 31.08.2021

Elcin Keskin Özyer , Coşkun Yıldız Erkut Kahramanoğlu , Yasemin Özkan , Zübeyir Kazan

https://doi.org/10.15311/selcukdentj.556774

Öz

Amaç: Günümüzde diş eksikliklerinin telafisinde implant uygulamaları yaygın bir şekilde tercih edilmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı serbest diş hekimlerinin implant uygulamalarında kullandıkları teknikleri, yaptıkları planlamaları ve komplikasyonlarla karşılaştıklarında buldukları çözüm yollarını değerlendirmektir.  

Gereç ve Yöntem:Bu çalışmada 125 uzman olmayan diş hekimine ulaşılmış ve implant uygulaması hakkında 28 sorudan oluşan anket uygulanmıştır. Planlama, diagnoz teknikleri, kullanılan ölçü tekniği ve materyalleri, kullandıkları implant markaları, karşılaştıkları komplikasyonlar, kullandıkları üst yapı malzemeleri sorgulanmıştır.

Bulgular:Tam dişsizlik vakalarında sabit protezler %64, hareketli protezler %29 ve hibrit protezler %7 oranında tercih edilmektedir. Günde 1 paketten fazla sigara tüketen bireylerde, diabet hastalarında, gelişimini tamamlamamış bireylerde ve baş boyun bölgesinde radyoterapi gören bireylerde implant tedavisi tercih edilmemektedir. İmplant üstü sabit restorasyonlarda simante restorasyonlar vidalı sistemlere göre daha sık tercih edilmektedir. İmplant üstü restorasyonların ölçüsünün alınmasında hem açık hem de kapalı kaşık tekniklerinin kullanıldığı görülmüştür. Hekimlerin %76 oranında 8.5 mm ve daha uzun implantları tercih ettikleri ve %73 oranında çapı 3.7 ve 4.2 mm arasındaki implantları kullandıkları görülmüştür. Bu çalışmada en çok peri-implantitis komplikasyonu ile karşılaşıldığı gözlenmiştir. İmplant tedavisi uygulanan hastaların sıklıkla 6 ay- 1 yılda bir kontrole çağırıldığı görülmüştür.  

Sonuç:Bu çalışmada hekimler vaka sınıflamasına göre farklı tedavi seçenekleri ve bu tedavi seçeneklerine göre de farklı materyaller seçtikleri görülmüştür.

Anahtar Kelime: Anket, diş hekimi, implant.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Anket, diş hekimi, implant

IMPLANT TREATMENT APPROACHES OF GENERAL DENTAL PRACTITIONERS

Öz

Background:Nowadays implant treatments are widely preferred in compensating tooth deficiencies. The aim of this study is to evaluate the technique, treatment plans and the solutions that has been used when there is a complication.

Material and Method: In this study, 125 general dental practitionerswere reached and a questionnaire consisting of 28 questions about implant application was applied. Planning, diagnostic techniques, impression techniques and materials used, complications and the prosthetic materials they used were questioned.

Results:Implant supported fixed prosthesis 64%, implant supported overdenture 29% and four implant supported hybrid prosthesis 7% are preferred in cases of edentulous patients. Participants were preferred 37.6% four implant supported fixed prosthesis, 19.1% six implant supported fixed prosthesis 29.8% 2 implant ball attachment and 13% 2implant locators for removable prosthetic treatment plan. Dentists prefer panoramic x-rays most often (35%) in the diagnosis and the treatment plan. For prosthetic restorations 71% of dentists prefer metal ceramic restorations whereas zirconia supported restorations are preferred by 26.7% of them. Cemented restorations are preferred more often than screw- retained restorations. It has been reported that only 14% dentists prefer to immediate implant loading after implant placement. Both open and closed tray impression techniques have been used. Peri-implantitis is one of the most common inflammatory complications in this study. Patients treated with implant therapy were often referred to control every 6 months- 1 year.

Conclusion:In this study, dentists choose different treatment options according to case classification and different materials according to these treatment options.

Keywords: Questionnaire, dentist, implant.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Questionnaire, dentist, implant

Kaynakça

• 1. Wang HL, Shotwell JL, Itose T, Neiva RF. Multidisciplinary treatment approach for enhancement of implant esthetics, Implant Dent. 2005;14(1):21-9.
• 2. Stanford CM. Application of oral implants to the general dental practice, J Am Dent Assoc. 2005;136(8):1092-100.
• 3. Spiekermann H, Donath K, Hassel T, Jovanovic S, Rıtcher E. Implantology–Color Atlas of Dental Medicine. New York: Thieme Medical Publishers; 1995, p: 224-302.
• 4. Misch CE. Contemporary Implant Dentistry, 3rd ed. Chicago: Mosby; 2007, p:249-325.
• 5. Sonugelen M, Artunç C. Ağız protezleri ve biyomekanik. İzmir: Ege Üniversitesi Dişhekimliği Fakültesi Yayınları; 2002, s: 1-158.
• 6. Türker M, Yücetaş Ş. Ağız Diş Çene Hastalıkları ve Cerrahisi. Ankara: Özyurt Matbaacılık Hizmetleri; 3. Baskı, 2004, s:95-121.
• 7. Misch CE. Dental Implant Prosthetics, 2nd ed. Chicago: Mosby; 2004, p:153-288.
• 8. Gupta S, Patil N, Solanki J, Singh R, Laller S. Oral Implant Imaging: A Review, Malays J Med Sci. 2015; 22:7-17.
• 9. Nagarajan A, Perumalsamy R, Thyagarajan R, Namasivayam A. Diagnostic imaging for dental implant therapy, J Clin Imaging Sci. 2014; 4:4-14.
• 10. Naitoh M, Kawamata A, Iida H, Ariji E. Cross-sectional imaging of the jaws for dental implant treatment: accuracy of linear tomography using a panoramic machine in comparison with reformatted computed tomography, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2002 Jan-Feb;17(1):107-12.
• 11. Schropp L, Wenzel A, Kostopoulos L. Impact of conventional tomography on prediction of the appropriate implant size, Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2001; 92(4): 458-463.
• 12. Bayramoğlu E, Özkan YK, Yıldız C. Comparison of marginal and internal fit of press-on-metal and conventional ceramic systems for three- and four-unit implant-supported partial fixed dental prostheses: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2015 Jul;114(1):52-8.
• 13. Payne AG, Solomons YF. The prosthodontic maintenance requirements of mandibular mucosa-and implant-supported overdentures: a review of the literature, Int J Proshodont. 2000;13: 238-43.
• 14. Zitzmann NU, Marinello CP. A review of clinical and technical considerations for fixed and removable implant prostheses in the edentulous mandible, Int J Proshodont. 2002;15: 65-72.
• 15. Kahramanoğlu E, Kulak-Ozkan Y. Marginal and internal adaptation of different superstructure and abutment materials using two different implant systems for five-unit implant-supported fixed partial dentures: an in vitro study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013;28(5):1207-16.
• 16. Belser UC, Mericske- Stern R, Bernard JP, Taylor TD. Prosthetic management of the partially dentate patient with fıxed implant restorations, Clin Oral Impl Res. 2000;1:126-45.
• 17. Kahramanoğlu E, Kulak-Özkan Y. The effect of different restorative and abutment materials on marginal and internal adaptation of three-unit cantilever implant-supported fixed partial dentures: an in vitro study, J Prosthodont. 2013;22(8):608-17.
• 18. Steigenga JT, al-Shammari KF, Nociti FH, Misch CE, Wang HL. Dental implant design and its relationship to long-term implant success, Implant Dent. 2003; 12: 306–17.
• 19. Albrektsson T, Zarb GA. Determinants of correct clinical reporting, Int J Prosthodont. 1998;11(5):517-21.
• 20. Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Singh M, Weber HP, Gallucci GO. Success criteria in implant dentistry: a systematic review. J Dent Res. 2012 Mar;91(3):242-8.
• 21. Jansaker AM, Renvert S, Egelberg J. Treatment of Periimplant Infections: A Literatür Review, J Clin Periodont. 2003; 30(6):467-85.
• 22. Cheung MC, Kao PLH, Lee N, Sivathasan D. Interest In Dental İmplantology And Preferences For Implant Therapy: A Survey Of Victorian Dentists, Aust Dent J. 2016;61: 455-463.
• 23. Gibson RL, Barclay CW. Dental implantology education: a survey of opinion and experience of 106 general dental practitioners, Br Dent J. 2006;201(6):367-70.
• 24. Murray CM, Thomson WM, Leichter JW. Dental implant use in New Zealand: A 10-year update, N Z Dent J. 2016;112(2):49-54.
• 25. Hol C, Hellén-Halme K, Torgersen G, Nilsson M, Møystad A. How do dentists use CBCT in dental clinics? A Norwegian nationwide survey, Acta Odontol Scand. 2015;73(3):195-201.
• 26. Ramakrishnan P, Shafi FM, Subhash A, Kumara A, Chakkarayan J, Vengalath J. A survey on radiographic prescription practices in dental implant assessment among dentists in Kerala, India, Oral Health Dent Manag. 2014;13(3):826-30.
• 27. Hyde TP, Craddock HL, Gray JC, Pavitt SH, Hulme C, Godfrey M, Fernandez C, Navarro-Coy N, Dillon S, Wright J, Brown S, Dukanovic G, Brunton PA. A randomised controlled trial of complete denture impression materials, J Dent. 2014;42(8):895-901.
• 28. Russell AA, Tawse-Smith A, Broadbent JM, Leichter JW. Peri-implantitis diagnosis and treatment by New Zealand periodontists and oral maxillofacial surgeons, N Z Dent J. 2014;110(1):6-10.
• 29. Lambrecht JT, Cardone E, Kühl S. Status report on dental implantology in Switzerland, Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed. 2010;120(2):133-40.
• 30. Yoshiyuki Hagiwara, Tatsuya Narita, Yohei Shioda, Keisuke Iwasaki, Takayuki Ikeda,Shunsuke Namaki, Thomas J Salinas. Current status of implant prosthetics in Japan: a survey among certified dental lab technicians, Int J Implant Dent. 2015;1:4-19.