Eric Thevissen

Immediate loading of screw-retained all-ceramic crowns in immediate versus delayed single implant placement

PURPOSE The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the outcomes of immediately loaded all-ceramic crown restorations supported by implants placed in both mature bone and immediate extraction sockets. MATERIALS AND METHODS Forty-three tapered, external hex implants were placed immediately after extraction or in healed bone in a convenience sample of 38 patients from two clinics, with 23 implants immediately placed after tooth extraction and 20 placed in mature bone. Thirty implants were located in the maxilla and 13 in the mandible. Each surgical implant placement was followed by the fabrication of a screw-retained all-ceramic crown (zirconia-toughened alumina cylinder and layered with porcelain) that was then put into immediate function. Each patient was recalled annually for clinical and radiographic assessments. RESULTS All implants were loaded immediately and all functioned successfully following a mean follow-up of 26 months. Significantly more bone loss was recorded around delayed implants compared with immediately placed ones. Smoking, platform switching, and jaw location did not influence peri-implant bone loss. Porcelain chipping was noted in the case of two crowns. CONCLUSION The short-term outcome of prefabricated ceramic cylinders used to support a single screw-retained crown was regarded as successful. Immediate implant placement did not appear to increase the risk for implant failure and was accompanied by reduced peri-implant bone loss.

The provision of oral hygiene instructions and patient motivation in a dental care system without dental hygienists

INTRODUCTION Oral hygiene instructions (OHI) and patient motivation (PM), often provided by dental hygienists, are essential attributes to establishing good oral health in patients. The purpose of this study was to investigate the provision of OHI and PM by dental professionals in a dental care system without dental hygienists. METHODS AND MATERIALS A questionnaire, including 22 items (demographics, OHI and PM), was presented to 1037 dental professionals (=21.6% Flemish population). Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the provision of OHI and PM. Additionally, the Fisher-Freeman-Halton exact test was used to investigate the influence of qualification (general practitioner/specialist), work experience (< or ≥ 25 years), workload (< or ≥ 30 h), location of practice (rural/urban) and chair-side assistance (with/without). RESULTS Response rate was 75%. Participants reported a single strategy for preventive care and felt their efforts were not in harmony with the results. Lack of time, remuneration and patient interest were reported as complicating factors and participants agreed on allowing assistants to provide preventive care. Significant variance was found based on qualification (12/17 items), work experience (7/17 items), workload (1/17 items), location of practice (2/17 items) and chair-side assistance (15/17 items). CONCLUSION In a context without dental hygienists, OHI and PM appeared non-compliant with current international guidelines. Although dental professionals were concerned with preventive dentistry, they reported barriers including lack of time, remuneration and patient compliance. Almost all participants expressed the need for delegation of in-mouth OHI, suggesting a need for dental hygienists.

Attitude of dental hygienists, general practitioners and periodontists towards preventive oral care: an exploratory study

INTRODUCTION Promoting oral hygiene and stimulating patients responsibility for his/her personal health remain challenging objectives. The presence of dental hygienists has led to delegation of preventive tasks. However, in some countries, such as Belgium, this profession is not yet legalized. The aim of this exploratory study was to compare the attitude towards oral-hygiene instructions and patient motivational actions by dental hygienists and by general practitioners/periodontists in a context without dental hygienists. MATERIALS AND METHODS A questionnaire on demographics (six items), oral-hygiene instructions (eight items) and patient motivational actions (six items) was distributed to 241 Dutch dental hygienists, 692 general practitioners and 32 periodontists in Flanders/Belgium. Statistical analysis included Fishers exact-test, Pearsons chi-square test and multiple (multinomial) logistic regression analysis to observe the influence of profession, age, workload, practice area and chair-assistance. RESULTS Significant variance was found between general practitioners and dental hygienists (in 13 of 14 items), between general practitioners and periodontists (in nine of 14 items) and between dental hygienists and periodontists (in five of 14 items). In addition to qualification, chair-assistance was also identified as affecting the attitude towards preventive oral care. CONCLUSION The present study identified divergence in the application of, and experienced barriers and opinions about, oral-hygiene instructions and patient motivational actions between dental hygienists and general practitioners/periodontists in a context without dental hygienists. In response to the barriers reported it is suggested that preventive oriented care may benefit from the deployment of dental hygienists to increase access to qualified preventive oral care.