TY - JOUR
T1 - Peri-Implant Health and the Knowing-Doing Gap—A Digital Survey on Procedures and Therapies
AU - Hussain, Badra
AU - Haugen, Håvard Jostein
AU - Aass, Anne Merete
AU - Sanz, Mariano
AU - Antonoglou, Georgios N.
AU - Bouchard, Philippe
AU - Bozic, Darko
AU - Eickholz, Peter
AU - Jepsen, Karin
AU - Jepsen, Sören
AU - Karaca, Ebru Ozkan
AU - Kuru, Bahar Eren
AU - Nemcovsky, Carlos E.
AU - Papapanou, Panos N.
AU - Pilloni, Andrea
AU - Renvert, Stefan
AU - Roccuzzo, Mario
AU - Sanz-Esporrin, Javier
AU - Spahr, Axel
AU - Stavropoulos, Andreas
AU - Verket, Anders
AU - Vražić, Domagoj
AU - Lyngstadaas, Ståle Petter
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2021 Hussain, Haugen, Aass, Sanz, Antonoglou, Bouchard, Bozic, Eickholz, Jepsen, Jepsen, Karaca, Kuru, Nemcovsky, Papapanou, Pilloni, Renvert, Roccuzzo, Sanz-Esporrin, Spahr, Stavropoulos, Verket, Vražić and Lyngstadaas.
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - Objectives: Peri-implant tissue maintenance and treatment is becoming a serious challenge in implantology. With increasing numbers of implants being placed, more cases of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis is seen. A digital survey on peri-implant disease management was issued to experts in periodontology and implantology to identify the tools and procedures most commonly used today to treat peri-implant diseases and successfully manage peri-implant health. The primary aim was to assess whether there is consensus in the choice of treatment to manage peri-implant diseases and to prevent their recurrence once treated. The secondary aim was to obtain insight into future protocols and /or devices, and the research and development needed. Materials and Methods: Participants in this digital survey were professionals specialising in periodontology, oral surgery, and implant dentistry. The questionnaire included both a series of closed- and open-ended questions. A total of 16 countries participated. The survey was sent by e-mail to 70 individuals, 66 received the survey and 37 of receivers responded, two of the participants were excluded due to insufficient filling of the survey. In the end 35 respondents completed the survey. Results: Respondents agree that the efficacy of mechanical and chemical decontamination of implant surfaces needs to be improved and better documented. It is a common opinion that the current remedies, mostly adapted from periodontal practises, do not provide effective and reliable clinical outcomes when treating peri-implant ailments. There is a general agreement amongst experts that regularly scheduled (3–6-month intervals) maintenance treatments are essential for maintaining peri-implant health in patients experiencing implant complications. Respondents are also concerned about unnecessary use of systemic antibiotics for managing peri-implant health. Conclusion: Regardless of agreements in parts, there was no observed consensus on the most effective treatment options for treating peri-implantitis. The experts all agree it is an urgent need for well-designed, long-term follow-up randomised and controlled clinical trials comparing interventions to provide an evidence-based strategy for peri-implant health management.
AB - Objectives: Peri-implant tissue maintenance and treatment is becoming a serious challenge in implantology. With increasing numbers of implants being placed, more cases of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis is seen. A digital survey on peri-implant disease management was issued to experts in periodontology and implantology to identify the tools and procedures most commonly used today to treat peri-implant diseases and successfully manage peri-implant health. The primary aim was to assess whether there is consensus in the choice of treatment to manage peri-implant diseases and to prevent their recurrence once treated. The secondary aim was to obtain insight into future protocols and /or devices, and the research and development needed. Materials and Methods: Participants in this digital survey were professionals specialising in periodontology, oral surgery, and implant dentistry. The questionnaire included both a series of closed- and open-ended questions. A total of 16 countries participated. The survey was sent by e-mail to 70 individuals, 66 received the survey and 37 of receivers responded, two of the participants were excluded due to insufficient filling of the survey. In the end 35 respondents completed the survey. Results: Respondents agree that the efficacy of mechanical and chemical decontamination of implant surfaces needs to be improved and better documented. It is a common opinion that the current remedies, mostly adapted from periodontal practises, do not provide effective and reliable clinical outcomes when treating peri-implant ailments. There is a general agreement amongst experts that regularly scheduled (3–6-month intervals) maintenance treatments are essential for maintaining peri-implant health in patients experiencing implant complications. Respondents are also concerned about unnecessary use of systemic antibiotics for managing peri-implant health. Conclusion: Regardless of agreements in parts, there was no observed consensus on the most effective treatment options for treating peri-implantitis. The experts all agree it is an urgent need for well-designed, long-term follow-up randomised and controlled clinical trials comparing interventions to provide an evidence-based strategy for peri-implant health management.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85130751002&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85130751002&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3389/fdmed.2021.726607
DO - 10.3389/fdmed.2021.726607
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85130751002
SN - 2673-4915
VL - 2
JO - Frontiers in Dental Medicine
JF - Frontiers in Dental Medicine
M1 - 726607
ER -