Literature DB >> 28840873

Survey of consultants in restorative dentistry in the UK regarding ongoing care of patients provided with dental implants.

H P Beddis1, K A Durey1, M F W Y Chan1.   

Abstract

Background Funding for implant-based treatment within secondary care is limited, and acceptance criteria are determined locally according to funding agreements with NHS England. Indefinite review of all patients in secondary care is unlikely to be feasible due to limitations on departmental capacity. The increasing number of patients provided with implant-based treatment in secondary care has resulted in a growing maintenance burden, raising the question of who should provide this care. Management of some complications within primary care would facilitate patients' access to treatment, although no specific provision for maintenance of implant-retained prostheses is made within the NHS Dental Charges Regulations.Materials and methods An online survey was carried out to review services provided within restorative dentistry departments across the UK, investigating departmental protocols for review and maintenance of patients provided with dental implants.Results There was no consensus view on review protocols, discharge or provision of maintenance following implant placement. Fifty-seven percent would indefinitely carry out remake of implant-retained overdentures when clinically indicated, replace worn inserts, housings or abutments. Sixty-one percent would manage loose/lost screw- or cement-retained restorations and 68% would manage fractured restorations. Re-referral for peri-implant disease would be accepted by 64% of respondents. The lack of clear NHS funding for the management of complications was of concern to respondents in this survey.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28840873     DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2017.711

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br Dent J        ISSN: 0007-0610            Impact factor:   1.626


  8 in total

Review 1.  The diagnosis and treatment of peri-implantitis.

Authors:  A Mombelli; N P Lang
Journal:  Periodontol 2000       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 7.589

Review 2.  Consensus statements and recommended clinical procedures regarding implant survival and complications.

Authors:  Niklaus P Lang; Tord Berglundh; Lisa J Heitz-Mayfield; Bjarni E Pjetursson; Giovanni E Salvi; Mariano Sanz
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 2.804

Review 3.  Periodontal and periimplant maintenance: a critical factor in long-term treatment success.

Authors:  Nicholas D Shumaker; Brett T Metcalf; Nicholas T Toscano; Dan J Holtzclaw
Journal:  Compend Contin Educ Dent       Date:  2009-09

4.  Facilitation of implant provision in primary care.

Authors:  J C Field; N Rousseau; J M Thomason; C Exley; T Finch; J G Steele; J S Ellis
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2009-11-28       Impact factor: 1.626

Review 5.  Guidance for the maintenance care of dental implants: clinical review.

Authors:  Sylvia Todescan; Salme Lavigne; Anastasia Kelekis-Cholakis
Journal:  J Can Dent Assoc       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 1.316

Review 6.  Cemented and screw-retained implant reconstructions: a systematic review of the survival and complication rates.

Authors:  Irena Sailer; Sven Mühlemann; Marcel Zwahlen; Christoph H F Hämmerle; David Schneider
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 5.977

7.  Attitudes of general dental practitioners to the maintenance of Locator retained implant overdentures.

Authors:  J W Vere; S Eliyas; P F Wragg
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 1.626

Review 8.  A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) after a mean observation period of at least 5 years.

Authors:  Bjarni E Pjetursson; Daniel Thoma; Ronald Jung; Marcel Zwahlen; Anja Zembic
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 5.977

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.