Abstract
Abstract
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.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference26 articles.
1. Choi W, Nguyen BC, Doan A, Girod S, Gaudilliere B, Gaudilliere D. Freehand versus guided surgery: factors influencing accuracy of dental implant placement. Implant Dent. 2017;26(4):500–9 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28731896.
2. Blackburn TK, Cawood JI, Stoelinga PJ, Lowe D. What is the quality of the evidence base for pre-implant surgery of the atrophic jaw? Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008;37(12):1073–9 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19046623.
3. Bartols A, Kasprzyk S, Walther W, Korsch M. Lateral alveolar ridge augmentation with autogenous block grafts fixed at a distance versus resorbable poly-D-L-Lactide foil fixed at a distance: a single-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29(8):843–54 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29934956.
4. Schlee M, Dehner JF, Baukloh K, Happe A, Seitz O, Sader R. Esthetic outcome of implant-based reconstructions in augmented bone: comparison of autologous and allogeneic bone block grafting with the pink esthetic score (PES). Head Face Med. 2014;10:21 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24885136.
5. Sanz M, Donos N, Alcoforado G, Balmer M, Gurzawska K, Mardas N, et al. Therapeutic concepts and methods for improving dental implant outcomes. Summary and consensus statements. The 4th EAO Consensus Conference 2015. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26(Suppl 11):202–6 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26385630.
Cited by
5 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献