Evaluation of dentists' clinical approaches in implant applications and periimplantitis cases Diş hekimlerinin implant uygulamaları ve periimplantitis vakalarında klinik yaklaşımlarının değerlendirilmesi


YİĞİT U., YÜKSEL H. T., Torumtay Cin G., KURT Ş. E.

Current Research in Dental Sciences, cilt.32, sa.3, ss.189-195, 2022 (Scopus) identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 32 Sayı: 3
  • Basım Tarihi: 2022
  • Doi Numarası: 10.54614/crds.2022.6239
  • Dergi Adı: Current Research in Dental Sciences
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Scopus, TR DİZİN (ULAKBİM)
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.189-195
  • Anahtar Kelimeler: Defect, implant, periimplantitis
  • Uşak Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

Objective: Today, tooth extraction is performed for dental caries, periodontal diseases, pulpal diseases, trau-ma, orthodontic or prosthetic restorations. Although toothlessness was seen as a result of old age in the past, this situation has now changed. Patients do not accept these tooth deficiencies due to sociological, psychological, phonetic and function-related reasons and enter into new searches. As a result of this, there is an increase in the production and demand of dental implants. The increase in the demand for dental implants has brought about an increase in the incidence of peri-implant tissue diseases. In studies, it has been stated that conditions such as poor oral care, periodontitis history, smoking, uncontrolled systemic disease, and lack of intraoral care are effective in the development of diseases around the implant. The aim of this study; The aim of this study is to evaluate the techniques used by physicians in implant applications, their treatment plans and solutions to the complications they experience. Methods: 234 dentists participated in this study and a questionnaire consisting of 30 questions about implant applications and periimplantitis was applied. The technique, materials, planning, patient control and information about periimplantitis cases and treatment methods used in implant applications were questioned. Results: It was learned that 46% of the participants were 0-5 years old and 50% were general dentists. It was learned that 58% of the participants had implants for 0-5 years and 43% of them had less than 50 implants annually. The combined use of panoramic and computed tomography in implant planning was found to be 53%. The rate of those who think that the most important factor for the success of the implant is the surface properties was found to be 66%. The rate of physicians who think that the most important risk factor for periimplantitis is the implant-prosthesis connection is 73%. In the treatment of periimplantitis, mechanical debridement and medication therapy were preferred together with a rate of 46%. Conclusion: In our study, it was observed that physicians chose different planning methods and treatment options. Although physicians' approaches to periimplantitis and treatment methods are different, it is seen that they generally focus on mechanical debridement.