Pre-implantological treatment routines for alveolar ridge atrophy - an investigation among maxillofacial and oral surgeons in southern Germany.
Bone augmentation
Bone resection
Dental implant
Maxillofacial surgeon
Oral surgeon
Pre-implantological treatment
Specialists
Journal
BMC oral health
ISSN: 1472-6831
Titre abrégé: BMC Oral Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088684
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 07 2020
08 07 2020
Historique:
received:
13
03
2020
accepted:
29
06
2020
entrez:
10
7
2020
pubmed:
10
7
2020
medline:
24
11
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
It is not well-known which pre-implantological procedures are preferred by maxillofacial (MFS) and oral surgeons (OS) for the narrow atrophic alveolar ridge under practice based conditions and, if different training paths in surgery lead to other pre-implantological techniques being preferred. This study aims to identify which procedures are preferred by the respective specialists in which indication. A questionnaire was sent to a total of 300 MFS and OS in southern Germany. The questionnaire examined pre-implantological procedures (bone block, bone grafting material and/or particulate autogenous bone, titanium mesh, bone split, resection) in the edentulous severely atrophic mandible and in the severely atrophic single-tooth gap. Kendall's Tau-b test was used for statistical analyses. One hundred seventeen participants returned the questionnaire. 68 (58%) were OS and 49 (42%) were MFS. In the edentulous mandible, bone substitute material and resection were most preferred by both specialists. Bone blocks were statistically significantly more frequently associated with MFS and bone substitute materials with OS. Bone split was more frequently used in the atrophic single tooth gap than in the edentulous mandible. OS preferred bone blocks in the single tooth gap more often than in the edentulous mandible. MFS and OS preferred resection in the edentulous mandible significantly more frequently than in the single tooth gap. MFS in general prefer more invasive pre-implantological therapies with the same initial diagnosis than OS, which seems to be attributed to different training paths.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
It is not well-known which pre-implantological procedures are preferred by maxillofacial (MFS) and oral surgeons (OS) for the narrow atrophic alveolar ridge under practice based conditions and, if different training paths in surgery lead to other pre-implantological techniques being preferred. This study aims to identify which procedures are preferred by the respective specialists in which indication.
METHODS
A questionnaire was sent to a total of 300 MFS and OS in southern Germany. The questionnaire examined pre-implantological procedures (bone block, bone grafting material and/or particulate autogenous bone, titanium mesh, bone split, resection) in the edentulous severely atrophic mandible and in the severely atrophic single-tooth gap. Kendall's Tau-b test was used for statistical analyses.
RESULTS
One hundred seventeen participants returned the questionnaire. 68 (58%) were OS and 49 (42%) were MFS. In the edentulous mandible, bone substitute material and resection were most preferred by both specialists. Bone blocks were statistically significantly more frequently associated with MFS and bone substitute materials with OS. Bone split was more frequently used in the atrophic single tooth gap than in the edentulous mandible. OS preferred bone blocks in the single tooth gap more often than in the edentulous mandible. MFS and OS preferred resection in the edentulous mandible significantly more frequently than in the single tooth gap.
CONCLUSIONS
MFS in general prefer more invasive pre-implantological therapies with the same initial diagnosis than OS, which seems to be attributed to different training paths.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32641041
doi: 10.1186/s12903-020-01179-3
pii: 10.1186/s12903-020-01179-3
pmc: PMC7346617
doi:
Substances chimiques
Dental Implants
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
195Références
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017 Jun;19(3):404-412
pubmed: 28185409
Eur J Oral Implantol. 2009 Autumn;2(3):167-84
pubmed: 20467628
J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2016 Dec;15(4):542-546
pubmed: 27833350
Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011 Dec;15(4):225-31
pubmed: 21853249
Implant Dent. 2017 Aug;26(4):500-509
pubmed: 28731896
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006 Oct;17 Suppl 2:136-59
pubmed: 16968389
J Clin Periodontol. 2019 May;46(5):597-605
pubmed: 30980410
Eur J Oral Implantol. 2014 Summer;7 Suppl 2:S219-34
pubmed: 24977257
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017 Oct;19(5):884-894
pubmed: 28656713
Evid Based Dent. 2008;9(3):77
pubmed: 18927566
J Autism Dev Disord. 2016 Jul;46(7):2372-84
pubmed: 26993636
Head Face Med. 2014 May 28;10:21
pubmed: 24885136
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015 May-Jun;30(3):688-97
pubmed: 26009921
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015 Jan-Feb;30(1):196-201
pubmed: 25265123
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018 Aug;29(8):843-854
pubmed: 29934956
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014 Oct;16(5):655-67
pubmed: 23350589
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008 Dec;37(12):1073-9
pubmed: 19046623
Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2005 May-Jul;10(3):258-63
pubmed: 15876971
Fam Pract. 1996 Oct;13(5):468-76
pubmed: 8902517
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015 Sep;26 Suppl 11:202-6
pubmed: 26385630
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014 Feb;25(2):e149-54
pubmed: 23278408
Clin Oral Investig. 2018 Mar;22(2):1001-1008
pubmed: 28730455
Anaesthesist. 2016 Sep;65(9):681-9
pubmed: 27565996
Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2015 Mar 01;20(2):e251-8
pubmed: 25662543
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018 May/Jun;33(3):622-635
pubmed: 29763500