We investigated the prevalences and risk factors for peri-implant diseases in Japanese adult dental patients attending a follow-up visit at dental hospitals or clinics as part of their maintenance program. This cross-sectional multicenter study enrolled patients with dental implants who attended regular check-ups as part of a periodontal maintenance program during the period from October 2012 through September 2013. Patients with implants with at least 3 years of loading time were included in the study. The condition of peri-implant tissue was examined and classified into the following categories: healthy, peri-implant mucositis, and peri-implantitis. Patients were also evaluated for implant risk factors. A total of 267 patients (110 men, 157 women; mean age: 62.5 ± 10.7 years) were analyzed. The prevalence of patient-based peri-implant mucositis was 33.3% (n = 89), and the prevalence of peri-implantitis was 9.7% (n = 26). Poor oral hygiene and a history of periodontitis were strong risk factors for peri-implant disease. The present prevalences were lower than those previously reported. The quality of periodontal therapy before and after implant installation and patient compliance and motivation, as indicated by plaque control level, appear to be important in maintaining peri-implant tissue health.
BackgroundThe objective of this study was to ascertain the situation relevant to implants, the status of oral self-care, the status of aftercare provided by the dentist who placed the implant, and the usage status of the implant card, in homebound or institutionalized older adults who are receiving home-visit dental care due to the inability to visit a dental clinic on their own.MethodsA survey questionnaire was sent by post mail to 2339 people who are representative members or dental specialists belonging to any of the following three academic societies: Japanese Society of Oral Implantology, Japanese Society of Gerodontology, and Japan Prosthodontic Society. The survey questions asked were about provision/no provision of implant treatment, provision/no provision of home-visit dental care, the situation of patients after implant treatment, the situation of implants in the context of home-visit dental care, and the usage status and recognition of the implant card.ResultsNo less than 30% of the dentists had patients who were admitted to the hospital or became homebound after receiving implant treatment at their clinic. Twenty-two percent of the dentists had been consulted about the implants. Dentists who continued to provide post-operative implant care through home-visit dental care accounted for approximately 80%. On the other hand, however, 40% of the dentists did not know the post-implantation status of their implant patients. Of the patients receiving home-visit dental care, approximately 3% had implants (identified mainly by visual inspection). It was found that more than 50% of the dentists offering implant treatment did not use the implant card, and even in cases where it was used, most of the cards were not in the standardized format.ConclusionsWithin the limitation of low response rate to the questionnaire in this preliminary study, we concluded that many of practitioners including specialists indicated the need of universal record of implant for dependent elderly cares.
Purpose Japan, with an increasing number of elderly people needing long-term care in a super-aged society, urgent needs to develop the clinical guidelines on implant maintenance for elderly people with declining independence. The purpose is to categorize the troubles encountered in the care of patients with dental implants and to indicate actual practices and points of note. Methods From the members of the Japanese Society of Oral Implantology, 12 expert panelists who were experienced with many problems of implant maintenance during dental visits and were familiar with their solutions were selected. Through repeated discussions in the many panel meetings, the problems of implant maintenance during dental visits were distilled. Results During a dental visit, the oral cavity, general conditions, and background of elderly patients who cannot orally care for themselves must be grasped, and medical staff, care managers, and patients should understand the changes in these factors as time goes by. The solutions and responses that can be made differ greatly depending on the medical care facilities, the environment, differences in the experience of medical staff, and the patient’s background. Thus, it is necessary to select safe treatments appropriate to each situation. Conclusions This paper features many opinions based on clinical experiences. However, clinical guidelines on implant management during dental visits should be formulated in the future based on the accumulation of evidence through the implementation of clinical research.
Background Self-care and professional care of implants may prove difficult for elderly people who require nursing care. However, the actual state of care and problems remains unknown. In this study, we investigated the actual state of implant problems in elderly people living in their own home or in a nursing home who received visiting dental treatment. Methods We mailed questionnaire survey forms to 2339 representatives or specialists who were members of the Japanese Society of Oral Implantology, the Japanese Society of Gerodontology or the Japan Prosthodontic Society. We narrowed down the respondents to those who provided visiting dental treatment, and analyzed the actual state of implants observed during visiting dental treatment (type, care, problems, countermeasures, etc.). Results Of the 924 dentists who responded to the questionnaire survey, 291 (22%) provided visiting dental treatment. While the majority of implant types encountered in the previous 12 months were root-form implants, there were still a certain number of blade and subperiosteal implants. Daily implant care involved mostly cleaning with a toothbrush + auxiliary tools. The most frequent implant problems encountered in the past were difficulty in cleaning and peri-implantitis. Medication and antiphlogistic treatment were most frequently adopted as countermeasures to implant problems, followed by observation. When we classified the results into those for the dentists who provided implant treatment and those for the dentists who did not, we found that many of the dentists who did not provide implant treatment opted for observation or medication, while those who provided implant treatment also implemented removal of superstructure, retightening of screws, repair and so forth. Conclusions We found that many of the implant troubles encountered by dentists who provided visiting dental care were difficulty in cleaning or peri-implantitis, and that the actions taken against these troubles varied depending on the experience of the dentist performing the implant treatment. Our study also revealed that dentists who provide visiting dental care need to acquire knowledge and skills of implant treatment, to have actions prepared in case they encounter such cases, or to closely coordinate with dentists who specialize in implants.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.