best dentists & dental clinic - dubai - uae | oimc dubai - implant … · 2017-10-18 · today,...

Implant Survival Rates in a CondensedSurgical and Prosthetic Training Program

for General Practitioners in Dental ImplantsSouheil Hussaini, BDS, MS,* Saul Weiner, DDS,† and Mina Ahmad, DDS‡

Today, dental implants are a pre-dictable, successful modality forpatient care.1–3 They have revolu-

tionized the treatment planning processfor restorative care and eliminated theneed to retain hopeless teeth. Long-termsuccess rates of dental implants havebeen reported as high as 97% for single-tooth replacements and 94% forimplant-supported fixed partial den-tures.4–6 Up to this time, the surgicalspecialties of periodontics and oral andmaxillofacial surgery have provided themajority of surgical placement of im-plants.7 They have also provided theleadership for the restorative phase aswell. However, it is being recognizedthat the need for surgical and prosthetictreatment significantly exceeds the poolof specialists available for patient care.At the same time, many general practi-tioners are interested in incorporatingdental implant services in their prac-tices, but their training in dental schoolwith regard to implantology may havebeen deficient. Henry predicted that inthe near future general dentists will havea significant role in implant surgicalplacement and restoration for the patientrequiring 1 to 3 implants.8

There are a number of long-termtraining programs available, but manypractitioners are reluctant to take suchtime out of their practices. Economicconstraints exist as well. Several institu-tions have developed short-term implanttraining programs that intensely trainclinicians in elementary surgical place-ment and restoration of dental implants,allowing the course participant to doactual clinical treatment—surgical andrestorative. Their experiences, as well asreports from other implant programs,suggest that the prior experience of theparticipants is not critical to the pro-gram’s success. Yoonet al reported thesuccess rate of implant-supported resto-rations done by predoctoral students.The rate of success after 1 year of thisclosely supervised experience was 97%irrespective of the fact that surgical

placement restoration was done by nov-ices.9 Kohaviet al10 reported a 96% suc-cess rate for 303 implants done in apostgraduate program irrespective of theexperience of the dentist. Meloet alspecifically compared the success ratesof first and fourth year surgical residentsin a Washington, DC hospital in implantplacement. They concluded that experi-ence was not a significant factor in thesuccess rate. The results of these studiesare comparable with those of Payantetal for a group of graduated Canadiandentists who received 12 months oftraining from an implantologist with asuccess rate of 91%.11,12

The purposes of this article are tocompare, using retrospective analysis,the rates of survival of dental implantsplaced by the course participants in theImplant Dentistry Study Consortium

*Director of Research and Private Practice, Oral implantologyResearch Institute, Dubai, UAE.†Professor, Restorative Dentistry, New Jersey Dental School,Newark, NJ.‡Former Student, Ajman University of Science andTechnology, Ajman, UAE.

Reprint requests and correspondence to: Saul Weiner,DDS, Restorative Dentistry, New Jersey Dental SchoolRoom D830, Newark, NJ 07103, Phone: 973-972-4615, Fax: 973-972-0370, E-mail: [email protected]/[email protected]

ISSN 1056-6163/10/01901-073Implant DentistryVolume 19 • Number 1Copyright © 2010 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

DOI: 10.1097/ID.0b013e3181bb8301

Purpose: The aim of this studywas to evaluate the survival rates forsurgical placement of dental implantsin the Implant Dentistry Study Con-sortium (IDSC), a training programfor general dentists in the UAE.

Materials: The records of the pro-gram were reviewed, and all implantsplaced were evaluated, and the sur-vival and failures were identified.These records were compared withthose from an experienced prosth-odontist who has been trained in boththe surgical and restorative phases ofimplant dentistry. Descriptive statis-tics and Kaplan-Meier survival curveswere calculated. The Kaplan-Meierstatistics were compared using thelog-rank test.

Results:The characteristics of thepopulation of the IDSC and the prosth-odontist were similar. During the studyinterval, the prosthodontist had 299 im-plants in 145 subjects and IDSC with217 implants in 104 subjects placed. Thesurvival rates were 96% for the experi-enced prosthodontist and 93.5% forIDSC dentists. The Kaplan-Meiercurves were not statistically differentfrom each other, P � 0.05.

Conclusion:A closely supervisedtraining program in dental implantol-ogy of 4 sessions, 3 day each, canprovide successful surgical experi-ences for the program participants.(Implant Dent 2010;19:73–80)Key Words: continuing education,implant survival rates, dental implant

IMPLANT DENTISTRY / VOLUME 19, NUMBER 1 2010 73

(IDSC) training program with those of aprosthodontist with extensive trainingand experience in dental implantologyand to briefly describe the program.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

The subjects included 2 groups. Thefirst was the 217 implants placed in theIDSC training programs in the UAE in104 consecutively treated patients fromDecember 2001 to August 2007.

In parallel, there were 299 im-plants placed in the practice of theexperienced prosthodontist in 145consecutively treated patients. A dataentry form was designed, which in-cluded age, gender, medical history,implant features (type, dimensions,and location), dates of placement, ex-posure, loading of implant, and type ofaugmentation process. The criteria forimplant survival were based on theevidence of osseointegration andincluded lack of pain, mobility, peri-implant radiolucency, infections, par-esthesia, or uncontrolled soft tissueinfection.13,14 None of the patients hadspecific medical contraindications totreatment. An implant was regarded asfailure if it had to be removed for anyreason within 6 months. Any mobilityor sensation (e.g. pain) was regardedas a sign of loss of osseointegration,and implant removal was indicated.Other conditions for which implant re-moval could be indicated included in-curable soft tissue infection, persistentpain, and paresthesia. Implants thatdid not fail were included in the sur-vival group. Single-tooth replacement,fixed partial dentures, overdentures,and mandibular fixed cantilever pros-theses were all included in this study.Many patients had been treated in bothjaws. An individual assessment ofeach implant site was made.

The data were collected from De-cember 2001 through the August 2007with all treated cases reexamined atleast 2 months postoperatively and ev-ery 6 months until the August 2007.Data analysis included descriptive sta-tistics and Kaplan-Meier estimates ofimplant survival. The Kaplan-Meierestimates were compared using thelog-rank test at the 95% significancelevel.

RESULTSThe IDSC Group

A total of 217 implants wereplaced in 104 patients between De-cember 2001 and August 2007. Thefrequency of dental implant placementwas highest in the age group 30 to 49years old (29%–30%) followed by theage group 50 to 59 years old (17%)and below 30 years old (17%). Theage range was 20 to 71 years old, andthe mean age was 45 years old (Table1, IDSC). There were nearly equal

numbers of female and male patients(48% vs 52%). Most patients (75%)were treated with 1 to 2 implants, 25%received 3 or more implants, and 1patient received a total of 12 implants.Thirteen implants (8 implants in max-illa and 5 implants in mandible) failed,resulting in an overall implant survivalof 93.5%. The 117 implants placed inthe maxilla experienced a failure rateof 6.8%, and the 100 implants in themandible experienced a 5% failurerate. In decreasing order of frequency,

Table 1. Patient Characteristics

Characteristic No. Patients, n (%) No. Implants Placed (Failed)

IDSCSex

Male 50 (48) 109 (6)Female 54 (52) 108 (7)

Age (y)�30 18 (17) 25 (2)30–39 31 (30) 52 (4)40–49 30 (29) 58 (4)50–59 19 (17) 60 (1)�60 7 (7) 23 (2)

ProsthodontistSex

Male 65 (46) 150 (9)Female 80 (54) 149 (2)

Age (y)�30 28 (19) 35 (0)30–39 32 (23) 47 (0)40–49 36 (25) 88 (2)50–59 33 (22) 75 (2)�60 16 (11) 54 (6)

Table 2. Implant Location, Implant Failure, and Survival as a Function of Location

Location n (%) Failed Survival Rate, %

IDSCMaxillary

Anterior 39 (18%) 1 97Posterior 78 (36%) 7 91Total 117 (54%) 8 93

MandibularAnterior 23 (10%) 2 91Posterior 77 (36%) 3 96Total 100 (40%) 5 95

ProsthodontistMaxillary

Anterior 46 (15) 0 100Posterior 108 (36) 3 97Total 154 (51) 3 98

MandibularAnterior 22 (7) 0 100Posterior 123 (41) 8 93Total 145 (�49) 8 94

74 SURVIVAL RATES IN SURGICAL AND PROSTHETIC TRAINING PROGRAM • HUSSAINI ET AL

implants were placed in the maxillaryposterior, mandibular posterior, maxil-lary anterior, and mandibular anteriorregions (Table 2, IDSC). Approximately71% of the implants were placed in pos-terior regions. Sex, age, implant lengthdid not contribute significantly toimplant failure (Table 3, IDSC). Consid-ering implant features, the most com-monly used implant was BioLokfollowed by the Biohorizons implant,with diameter of 3.5 and 4 mm by 11.5to 13 mm, followed by the 5-mm diam-eter. The 4- and 5-mm by 10- to11.5-mm diameter implants had morefailure than the others (Table 4, IDSC).Ridge augmentation was required in 107implant sites (49%), and in most cases,the bone was from an autogenoussource. The success rate of implantsplaced into augmented sites (93%) andthe implants placed into bone that didnot require augmentation (95%) werenot significantly different.

The Experienced Prosthodontist Group

A total of 299 implants wereplaced in 145 patients between De-cember 2001 and August 2007. Thefrequency of dental implant supportedprosthesis was highest in the agegroup 40 to 49 years old (25%) fol-lowed by the age group 30 to 39 yearsold (23%) and 50 to 59 years old

(22%). The age range was 17 to 71years old, and the mean age was 43.3years old (Table 1, prosthodontist).There were 80 female (54%) and 65male (46%) patients. Most patients(77%) were treated with 1 to 2 im-plants, (23%) received 3 or more im-plants, and 1 patient received a total of8 implants. Eleven implants (3 im-plants in maxilla and 8 implants inmandible) failed, resulting in an over-all survival of 96%. One hundredfifty-four implants were placed in themaxilla experienced a failure rate of1.9% and 145 implants in the mandi-ble had a failure rate of 6%. The fre-quency of location in decreasing orderwas mandibular posterior, maxillaryposterior, maxillary anterior, and man-dibular anterior (Table 2, prosthodon-tist). The majority of treated arches(75%) involved posterior regions. Sex,age, and implant length did not con-tribute significantly to implant failure(Table 3, prosthodontist). Consideringimplant features, the most commonlyused implant was BioLok followed bythe Biohorizons implant, with diame-ters of 3.75 and 4 mm by 11.5 to 12mm, followed by the 3.5 and 5 mmdiameters. The 4 by 11.5 to 12 mmand 5 mm diameter implants had morefailure than the others (Table 4,prosthodontist). Ridge augmentation

was required in 144 implant sites, andthe majority used autogenous source.The success rate of implants placed

Table 3. Distribution of Implant Failures Within Patients

No. ImplantsPlaced per Patient

No.Patients

No. PatientsWith 1

Implant Failure

No. PatientsWith �1

Implant Failure

IDSC1 49 0 02 29 5 13 14 1 04 3 0 05 6 3 06� 3 0 1*217 104 8 2

Prosthodontist1 75 2 02 36 2 03 12 2 04 10 1 05 5 0 06� 7 0 2†299 145 7 2‡

* Two failed Implant from 6 implants in 1 patient.

† Two failed implants from 7 implants in 1 patient.

‡ Two failed implants from 4 implants in 1 patient.

Table 4. Implant Features

Parameter n (mm) Failure

IDSCLength

8 7 19 9 110 49 311 3 011.5 56 312 26 313 51 115 13 116 1 018 2 0

Diameter3 3 03.45–3.5 64 23.75 4 04 90 54.5 6 05 45 46 2 16.5 3 1

SystemBiohorizon 35 4BioLok 65 9Paragon 8 0Astra 4 03i 1 0ITI 4 0

ProsthodontistLength

8 3 19 13 110 32 011.5–12 142 813 80 015 30 1

Diameter3 4 03.45–3.5 72 03.7 8 04 118 44.3 2 04.5 3 04.7 8 05 73 46 6 26.5 5 1

SystemBiohorizon 97 6BioLok 176 5Paragon 19 0Astra 4 0Nobel Biocare 3 0


into augmented sites (98%) and non-augmentation sites (96%) was similar.A total of 48% of all implants requiredbone grafts. A comparison of theKaplan-Meier curves using the log-rank test showed no significant differ-ence between both groups,P � 0.05(Fig. 1).

DISCUSSION

The results of this study supportthe hypothesis of the IDSC programthat the survival rates of implantplacement in this program by the nov-ice implantologist are comparablewith that of an experienced implan-tologist. These objective observationsparallel the subjective evaluations ofthe program by participants. Here,�80% rated the experiences of theprogram very good or excellent. Theremainder found them acceptable.

The ideal education in implant den-tistry provides supervised hands-on clin-ical training on live patients as well asdidactic instruction by recognized teach-ers in implant dentistry. Although thisprogram is of short duration, it is a thor-ough program with increasing levels ofexperience. General dentists in privatepractice who are unable to return to full-time postgraduate study can enhancetheir backgrounds in implant dentistryby this short training program. The mainadvantage of these programs is the per-sonal exposure to the expert who spon-sors the program as well as the informal,small-group learning environment.

Although this program is of shortduration, it is a thorough program withincreasing levels of experience. Theprogram has four 3-day modules start-ing with individual single surgicalplacements in the maxillary premolar

and mandibular anterior regions and iscompleted with internal sinus lifts andparticulate grafting procedures in con-junction with implant placement in theposterior area of the maxilla. Thesemodules are distributed over a 1-yearperiod. It is expected that betweenmodules, the participants will continueto place more implants to the levelcompleted.

The characteristics of the patientpopulations of the novice training pro-gram (IDSC) and that of the privateprosthodontist were similar. Althoughthe background experience of the novicestudents may not be important, the qual-ity of instruction and the treatment pro-tocols are significant. The instructionincludes 3 to 4 lectures per module, de-tailed treatment planning, and closesupervision by the faculty. The partici-pants are organized in teams with rota-tions as surgeons, assistants, recorders,and photographers. The participantpractitioners are required to documenteach case with a treatment plan, detailsof treatment, and photographs.

We believe that the key to thesuccess of this program is the fact thatit is strictly supervised and specificprotocols have been developed for theprogram that each participant mustfollow in the program. These includethe following.

A Treatment Plan Is Developed forEach Case

Each case is presented to thegroup before beginning the implantprocedure, either surgical or restor-ative. As part of the treatment plan-ning process, a thorough evaluationthat includes clinical examination,periapical radiographs, a digital cali-brated panoramic radiograph and to-mograms if necessary is performed.This provides the required informationto check the positions of vital anatom-ical structures including the maxillarysinus and the mandibular canal. Thor-ough medical and dental histories areobtained. Study models are made withjaw records if needed. The treatmentplans are developed by the participantsurgeons in consultation with the fac-ulty and presented for discussion andreview.

The Surgical Phase Is Carefully Outlined

Diagnostic and surgical templatesare fabricated. The treatment plan isthoroughly discussed with the patientand all questions answered. The pa-tient receives thorough preoperativeinstructions and prophylactic medica-tions if necessary. On the day of sur-gery, a consent is signed and thepatient changes into a clean gown(scrub suit) and brushes his/her teethwith a 0.12% chlorhexidine gel for 4minutes after taking paracetamol (500mg) and ibuprofen (600 mg). A rigor-ous operating room environment ismaintained. Soft tissue procedures aredone atraumatically, and the osteot-omy is made with copious cold irriga-tion. Radiographs are obtained duringthe procedure to ensure correct posi-tioning and alignment of the fixture.The implant is inserted in an isolatedfield, and a postoperative radiographis taken to confirm the implant posi-tion. Postoperative instructions aregiven to the patient in writing andreviewed verbally. A prescription isgiven to the patient for pain, inflam-mation, and antibiotic if necessary. Anicepack is provided to the patient toreduce the swelling. The doctor isavailable for consultation if necessary.

The Restorative Phase Follows a 2-StageProtocol (2–5 Months After Placement)

The implants are uncovered and af-ter soft tissue healing, a final impressionis made. Jaw records are obtained andthe case sent to the laboratory for fabri-cation of the prosthesis. After try-in andporcelain application, the final prosthe-sis is inserted. The soft tissues in theanterior region are developed using tem-porary restorations.

Maintenance and Recall Are Providedin the Prosthodontist’s Office on aRegular Basis

Recall includes clinical and radio-graphic examinations and prophylaxis.A standardized radiograph is taken toevaluate crestal bone height. Ascratchless professional cleaning isdone using prophy cups and pumicearound the implant–abutment neck,followed by an application of 0.8%hyaluronic acid and 0.2% chlorhexi-dine, subgingivally.

Fig. 1. Survival proportions.


Reports by Yoonet al,9 Kohaviet al,10 and Meloet al11 parallel thosereported here with similar experi-ences. It would thus seem that pro-grams for the novice can be successfulin a variety of venues. Development offurther programs of this type would behelpful to provide implant training forthe general dentist who is not able toexcuse him or herself from their prac-tices for a long period of time. Thedevelopment of the IDSC program inthe UAE has been welcomed to im-prove the level of dental care for pa-tients as well as the knowledge baseand skills of the clinicians providingoral care and treatment for the residentpopulation.

CONCLUSION

A short-term training program indental implantology can provide suc-cessful surgical experiences for theprogram participants. The success ofparticipating dentists is based on theirabilities to model the strategies oftraining program and apply them insimilar cases. When treatment com-plexity exceeds a dentist’s level oftraining and expertise, appropriate re-ferral to an experienced implant sur-geon and prosthodontist should bemade.

Disclosure

The authors claim to have no finan-cial interest in any company or any ofthe products mentioned in this article.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

BioHorizons Inc through its BioLokdivi-sion partially provided the implantsused by the IDSC.

REFERENCES

1. Davarpanah M, Martinez H, EtienneD, et al. A prospective multicenter evalua-tion of 1,583 3i uimplants: 1-to-5 yeardata. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2002;17:820-828.

2. Bornstein MM, Lussi A, Schmid B, etal. Early loading of titanium implants with asandblasted and acid etched (SLA) surface:3 year results of a prospective study in par-tially edentulous patients. Int J Oral Macillo-fac Implants. 2003;18:659-666.

3. Hardt CR, Grondahl K, Lekholm U,Wennstrom LJ. Outcome of implant therapy inrelation to experienced loss of periodontalbone support. A retrospective 5-year study.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002;13:488-494.

4. Lindh T, Gunne J, Tillberg A, et al. Ameta-analysis of implants in partial edentu-lism. Clin Oral Implant Res. 1998;9:80-90.

5. Gotfredsen K. A 5-year prospectivestudy of single tooth replacements supportedby the Astra Tech implant: A pilot study. ClinImplant Dent Relat Res. 2004;6:1-8.

6. Lemmerman KJ, Lemmerman NE.Osseointegrated dental implants in private

practice: A long term case series study.J Periodontol. 2005;76:310-315.

7. Meraw SJ, Eckert SE, Yacyshyn CE,et al. Analysis of surgical referral patternsfor endosseous dental implants. Int J OralMaxillofac Implants. 1999;4:265-270.

8. Henry P, Klineberg I. Postgraduateimplant education in Australian and NewZealand dental schools. Aust ProsthodontJ. 1995;9:55-59.

9. Yoon YE, Kim MG, Bloom M, et al.Evaluation of implants restored by predoctoralstudents. Presented at the 8th InternationalSymposium on Periodontics and RestorativeDentistry. New Concepts and Optimal Den-tal Practice, Boston, MA, 2004.

10. Kohavi D, Azran G, Shapira L. Ret-rospective clinical review of dental implantsplaced in a university training program.J Oral Implantol. 2004;30:23-29.

11. Melo MD, Shafie H, Obeid G. Im-plant survival rates for oral and maxillofacialsurgery residents: A retrospective clinicalreview with analysis of resident level oftraining on implant outcome. J Oral Maxil-lofac Surg. 2006;64:1185-1189.

12. Payant L, Williams JE, Zwemer JD.Survey of dental implant practice. J OralImplantol. 1994;20:50-58.

13. Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthing-ton P, et al. The long-term efficacy of cur-rently used dental implants: A review andproposed criteria of success. Int J OralMaxillofac Implants. 1986;1:11-25.

14. Misch CE, Perel ML, Hom-Lay W,et al. Implant success, survival and failure:The International Congress of Oral Implan-tologists (ICOI) Pisa consensus confer-ence. Implant Dent. 2008;17:5-15.

Abstract Translations

GERMAN / DEUTSCHAUTOR(EN): Souheil Hussaini, BDS, MS, Saul Weiner,DDS, Mina Ahmad, DDS.Implantierungsuberlebensraten bei einem komprimiertenchirurgischen und prothetischen Trainingsprogramm fu¨rallgemeine Facha¨rzte fur Zahnimplantierungen

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG: Zielsetzung: Die vorliegendeStudie zielte darauf ab, die U¨ berlebensquoten fu¨r die chirur-gische Setzung von Zahnimplantaten im Studienkonsortiumfur Implantierungszahnheilkunde (IDSC), einem Training-sprogramm fu¨r Allgemeinzahna¨rzte in den Vereinigten Ara-bischen Emiraten, zu beurteilen.Materialien und Methoden:Die Aufzeichnungen zum Programm wurden gepru¨ft undalle eingepflanzten Implantate wurden bewertet und dieUberlebens-sowie Versagensquoten ermittelt. Diese

Aufzeichnungen wurden mit denen eines erfahrenen Pro-thetikspezialisten verglichen, der in sowohl den chirurgis-chen als auch den wiederherstellenden Schritten derImplantierungszahnbehandlung versiert ist. BeschreibendeStatistiken und Kaplan-Meier-Kurven hinsichtlich des Im-plantierungserfolgs wurden berechnet. Die Kaplan-Meier-Statistiken wurden mittels Log-Rank-Test verglichen.Ergebnisse: Die Studiengruppen des IDSC und desProthetik-Facharztes waren in ihren Eigenschaften gleich.Im Verlauf der Studie pflanzte der Prothetiker 145 Pati-enten insgesamt 299 Implantate ein, wa¨hrend das IDSC217 Implantate bei 104 Patienten einsetzte. Die U¨ berle-bensraten lagen bei 96% fu¨r den erfahrenen Prothetik-Spezialisten und bei 93.5% fu¨r die Zahna¨rzte des IDSC. Esgab keine statistisch bedeutsame Unterscheidung zwischenden Kaplan-Meier-Kurven der einzelnen Gruppen,P �


0.05. Schlussfolgerung:Wird ein eng angeleitetes Train-ingsprogramm in Zahnimplantierungsheilkunde in 4 Sit-zungen mit jeweils 3 pro Tag durchgefu¨hrt, kann dies zuhervorragenden erfolgreichen chirurgischen Erfahrungenfur die Programmteilnehmer fu¨hren.

SCHLUSSELWORTER: Weiterbildung, Implantatu¨berle-bensraten, Zahnimplantat

SPANISH / ESPAÑOLAUTOR(ES): Souheil Hussaini, BDS, MS, Saul Weiner,DDS, Mina Ahmad, DDS.Tasas de supervivencia de implantes en un programa con-densado de capacitacioń prostetica y quirurgica para prac-ticantes generales en implantes dentales

ABSTRACTO: Propo´sito: El objetivo de este estudio fueevaluar las tasas de supervivencia de la colocacioń quirurgicade implantes dentales en el Consorcio de Estudio de Odon-tología de Implantes (IDSC), un programa de capacitaciońpara dentistas en la UAE.Materiales y Metodos: Se evalu-aron los registros del programa y todos los implantes colocadosy se identificola supervivencia y las fallas. Estos registros secompararon con los de un prostodoncista experimentado queha recibido capacitacioń en las fases restaurativas y quiru´r-gicas de la odontología de implantes. Se calcularon estadís-ticas descriptivas y curvas de supervivencia de Kaplan-Meier.Las estadísticas de Kaplan-Meier se compararon usando laprueba del rango logarítmico.Resultados:Las característicasde la poblacioń del IDSC y el prostodoncista fueron simi-lares. Durante el intervalo del estudio, el prostodoncistacoloco 299 implantes en 145 sujetos y el IDSC con 217implantes en 104 pacientes. Las tasas de supervivencia fuerondel 96% para el prostodoncista experimentado y un 93.5%para los dentistas del IDSC. Las curvas de Kaplan-Meier nofueron estadísticamente diferentes entre ellas,P � 0.05.Conclusion: Un programa de capacitacioń estrictamente su-pervisado en implantología dental de cuatro sesiones, 3 cadadía, puede proporcionar experiencias quiru´rgicas exitosas alos participantes en el programa.

PALABRAS CLAVES: educacioń continua, tasas de super-vivencia del implante, implante dental

PORTUGUESE / PORTUGUÊSAUTOR(ES): Souheil Hussaini, Bacharel em CirurgiaDentaria, Mestre em Cieˆncia, Saul Weiner, Cirurgiaõ-Dentista, Mina Ahmad, Cirurgia˜-Dentista.Taxas de Sobreviveˆncia de Implante num Programa deTreinamento Cirurgico e Protetico Condensado para Clíni-cos Gerais em Implantes Denta´rios

RESUMO: Objetivo:O objetivo deste estudo era avaliar astaxas de sobreviveˆncia para colocaçao cirurgica de implantes

dentarios no Conso´rcio de Estudo de Odontologia de Im-plante (Implant Dentistry Study Consortium - IDSC), umprograma de treinamento para dentistas gerais nos EmiradosArabes Unidos.Materiais e Metodos: Os registros do pro-grama foram revisados e todos os implantes foram avaliadose a sobreviveˆncia e falhas foram identificadas. Esses registrosforam comparados com aqueles de um protodontista experi-ente que foi treinado tanto na fase ciru´rgica quanto na res-taurativa da odontologia de implante. A estatística descritivae as curvas de sobreviveˆncia de Kaplan-Meier foram calcu-ladas. A estatística de Kaplan-Meier foi comparada usando oteste log-rank.Resultados:As características da populaçaodo IDSC e do protodontista eram semelhantes. Durante ointervalo do estudo, o protodontista colocou 299 implantesem 145 indivíduos e o IDSC, 217 implantes em 104 indi-víduos. As taxas de sobreviveˆncia foram 96% para o prot-odontista experiente e 93.5% para os dentistas do IDSC. Ascurvas de Kaplan-Meier naõ foram estatisticamente dife-rentes uma da outra,P � 0.05.Conclusao: Um programa detreinamento estreitamente supervisionado em implantologiadentaria de quatro sesso˜es, 3 por dia, pode proporcionarexperiencias cirurgicas bem-sucedidas para os participantesdo programa.

PALAVRAS-CHAVE: educaçao continuada, taxas de sobre-vivencia de implante, implante denta´rio

RUSSIAN /��: Souheil Hussaini,�� , �� , SaulWeiner, �� , MinaAhmad,�� .�� !��

�"#$%": ��: �� - �� (Implant Den-tistry Study Consortium, IDSC)� �� !.%� ��& � � ��!&: "�� , �� , �� -�� , �� #�� #�� .!�� -��,��#��#�� ."�� -�� $��-%��. &�� $��-%�� -�� '��


�� . � ��'��&: (�� IDSC � ��-�� . )� �� -�� 299�� 145��, �� IDSC — 217 �� 104 ��.*�� -�� -�� 96 %,� �� IDSC — 93,5%.$�� $��-%�� , P� 0,05.�&��!: *�� , �� , ��3 ��, �� #�� .

()$*"��" +)��: ��#�� '��,�� ,��

TURKISH / TURKCEYAZARLAR: Souheil Hussaini, BDS, MS, Saul Weiner,DDS, Mina Ahmad, DDS.Genel Pratisyenler için Dental Implant Konusunda Kısa birCerrahi ve Protez Eg˘itim Programında Implant SagkalımOranları

OZET: Amac: Bu calısmanın amacı, Birles¸ik ArapEmirlikleri’nde genel dis¸ hekimleri icin bir egitim programıolan Implant Dentisty Study Consortium’da (IDSC – I˙mplantDis Hekimligi Calısma Konsorsiyumu) cerrahi dental implantyerlestirmede sag˘kalım oranlarını deg˘erlendirmekti.GerecveYontem: Programın kayıtları incelenerek yerles¸tirilen tumimplantlar deg˘erlendirildi ve sag˘kalım ile basarısızlık be-lirlendi. Bu kayıtlar sonra, implant dis¸ hekimliginin hemcerrahi ve hem de restoratif as¸amalarında eg˘itim gormusdeneyimli bir prostodonti uzmanının kayıtları ile kars¸ılas-tırıldı. Tanımlayıcı istatistiksel veriler ve Kaplan-Meiersagkalım egrileri hesaplandı. Kaplan-Meier istatistikleri log-rank testi kullanılarak kars¸ılastırıldı. Bulgular: IDSC ve pr-ostodonti uzmanının tedavi ettig˘i populasyonların o¨zellikleribirbirine benzerdi. Ç alısma suresinde prostodonti uzmanı 145olguda 299 implant yerles¸tirirken, IDSC programı hekimleri104 hastada 217 implant yerles¸tirdi. Deneyimli prostodontiuzmanı icin sagkalım oranı %96 iken IDSC dis¸ hekimleri icinbu oran %93.5 idi. Kaplan-Meier eg˘rileri istatistiksel açıdananlamlı sekilde farklı deg˘ildi, P � 0.05. Sonuc: Gunde 3olmak uzere do¨rt oturumdan olus¸an ve hekimlerin yakındandenetildigi bir dental implantoloji eg˘itim programı, programakatılanlar icin basarılı cerrahi deneyimleri sag˘lamaktadır.

ANAHTAR KELI MELER: devam eden eg˘itim, implantsagkalım oranları, dental implant

JAPANESE /


CHINESE /

KOREAN /


best dentists & dental clinic - dubai - uae | oimc dubai - implant … · 2017-10-18 · today,...

Documents