OBJECTIVES: To investigate the interpretation and assessment of bone quality among Brazilian and Swedish specialist performing implant treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A questionnaire was developed containing open and closed questions on attitudes, knowledge, and understanding of diagnostic methods for bone quality assessment. The questionnaire was sent by mail to dental implant specialists in Brazil while the Swedish version was Web-based and sent to specialists in periodontology and maxillofacial surgery. The response rate in the Brazilian group was 15.4% and in the Swedish group 36.5%. RESULTS: Most respondents in both groups considered bone quality to be an important parameter for implant treatment outcome. Among Swedish specialists, bone quality, however, was considered to be of low relevance. The most popular method for assessing bone quality among Swedish specialists was the hand-felt perception of drilling resistance followed by radiography. The Brazilian specialists more often used peak insertion torque. Most respondents classified bone quality, and both groups used the classification proposed by Lekholm & Zarb (Tissue-Integratedprosthesis: Osseointegration in Clinical Dentistry, 1985, Quintessence, Chicago) most frequently. CONCLUSION: Specialists in both countries considered bone quality to be an important parameter for implant treatment outcome, but there was no consensus neither on what bone quality means nor on how to assess bone quality.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the interpretation and assessment of bone quality among Brazilian and Swedish specialist performing implant treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A questionnaire was developed containing open and closed questions on attitudes, knowledge, and understanding of diagnostic methods for bone quality assessment. The questionnaire was sent by mail to dental implant specialists in Brazil while the Swedish version was Web-based and sent to specialists in periodontology and maxillofacial surgery. The response rate in the Brazilian group was 15.4% and in the Swedish group 36.5%. RESULTS: Most respondents in both groups considered bone quality to be an important parameter for implant treatment outcome. Among Swedish specialists, bone quality, however, was considered to be of low relevance. The most popular method for assessing bone quality among Swedish specialists was the hand-felt perception of drilling resistance followed by radiography. The Brazilian specialists more often used peak insertion torque. Most respondents classified bone quality, and both groups used the classification proposed by Lekholm & Zarb (Tissue-Integratedprosthesis: Osseointegration in Clinical Dentistry, 1985, Quintessence, Chicago) most frequently. CONCLUSION: Specialists in both countries considered bone quality to be an important parameter for implant treatment outcome, but there was no consensus neither on what bone quality means nor on how to assess bone quality.
Authors: Laura Ferreira Pinheiro Nicolielo; Jeroen Van Dessel; G Harry van Lenthe; Ivo Lambrichts; Reinhilde Jacobs Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-09-17 Impact factor: 3.039