J W Vere1, S Eliyas1, P F Wragg1. 1. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Charles Clifford Dental Hospital, Sheffield, S10 2SZ.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Locator retained implant overdentures are associated with a high incidence of prosthodontic complications. This study investigated whether general dental practitioners (GDPs) were willing to maintain these prostheses in primary dental care. METHOD: A questionnaire was distributed to all GDPs referring patients for an implant assessment to the Charles Clifford Dental Hospital, Sheffield between 1 January 2012 and 30 June 2012. RESULTS: Ninety-four out of one hundred and forty-six questionnaires were returned (response rate: 64%). Thirteen GDPs (14%) were able to identify the Locator attachment system from clinical photographs. Eighty-two GDPs (87%) would adjust the fit surface of a Locator retained implant overdenture. Twenty-three GDPs (25%) would replace a retentive insert, 18 GDPs (19%) would tighten a loose abutment, 68 GDPs (72%) would debride abutments and 25 GDPs (27%) would remake a Locator-retained implant overdenture. Forty-seven GDPs (50%) felt that the maintenance of these prostheses was not their responsibility. The main barriers identified to maintenance by GDPs were a lack of training, knowledge and equipment. Seventy GDPs (74%) would like further training in this area. CONCLUSIONS: GDPs are not familiar with the Locator attachment system and are reluctant to maintain implant retained overdentures. GDPs would like further training in this area.
INTRODUCTION: Locator retained implant overdentures are associated with a high incidence of prosthodontic complications. This study investigated whether general dental practitioners (GDPs) were willing to maintain these prostheses in primary dental care. METHOD: A questionnaire was distributed to all GDPs referring patients for an implant assessment to the Charles Clifford Dental Hospital, Sheffield between 1 January 2012 and 30 June 2012. RESULTS: Ninety-four out of one hundred and forty-six questionnaires were returned (response rate: 64%). Thirteen GDPs (14%) were able to identify the Locator attachment system from clinical photographs. Eighty-two GDPs (87%) would adjust the fit surface of a Locator retained implant overdenture. Twenty-three GDPs (25%) would replace a retentive insert, 18 GDPs (19%) would tighten a loose abutment, 68 GDPs (72%) would debride abutments and 25 GDPs (27%) would remake a Locator-retained implant overdenture. Forty-seven GDPs (50%) felt that the maintenance of these prostheses was not their responsibility. The main barriers identified to maintenance by GDPs were a lack of training, knowledge and equipment. Seventy GDPs (74%) would like further training in this area. CONCLUSIONS:GDPs are not familiar with the Locator attachment system and are reluctant to maintain implant retained overdentures. GDPs would like further training in this area.
Authors: J Mark Thomason; Jocelyne Feine; Catherine Exley; Paula Moynihan; Frauke Müller; Ignace Naert; Janice S Ellis; Craig Barclay; Chris Butterworth; Brendan Scott; Christopher Lynch; Dominic Stewardson; Philip Smith; Richard Welfare; Paul Hyde; Robert McAndrew; Michael Fenlon; Stewart Barclay; Dean Barker Journal: Br Dent J Date: 2009-08-22 Impact factor: 1.626