Implant education patterns and clinical practice of general dentists in Australia

Assessing the quality of YouTube™ videos on fixed dental implant home-care and maintenance protocols

OBJECTIVES

The implant's supporting structure differs from that of the teeth when plaque accumulates, making it more prone to inflammation and bone loss. To ensure the implant's longevity, an effective maintenance protocol should be followed. This study aimed to evaluate the information on oral hygiene procedures at home for implant-supported fixed prosthesis.

METHODS

The keywords 'cleaning dental implant,' 'how to clean dental implant,' and 'dental implant hygiene' used to search for videos on YouTube™. Following the exclusions, two researchers independently analysed the remaining 100 videos for demographic data and content usefulness.

RESULTS

In terms of usefulness score distribution, 53.52% of the videos were considered slightly useful, 38.4% moderately useful and 8.1% very useful. The video content had the least quantity of knowledge about toothpaste choice (11.1%), but the greatest quantity of knowledge on flossing (68.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

According to the study's findings, there is presently no evidence-based information on YouTube™ on dental implant oral hygiene protocols for home care procedures hygiene education. Therefore, dental care professionals should analyse the information's quality and reliability before recommending it to patients.

Dentists' preferences in implant maintenance and hygiene instruction

BACKGROUND

This study investigated the preferences of dentists in Australia in providing professional implant maintenance and implant-specific oral hygiene instructions (OHI).

METHODS

General dentists were surveyed online about their preferences in peri-implant diagnostics, maintenance provision, armamentarium used, and implant OHI techniques and frequency.

RESULTS

Most of the 303 respondents (96%) provided maintenance services; 87.6% reviewed implants regularly while 10.7% only performed diagnostics after detecting clinical signs/symptoms. Supragingival prosthesis cleaning was performed by 77.9% of respondents, 35.0% performed subgingival debridement, 41.9% treated peri-implant mucositis and 18.2% treated peri-implantitis. About 15% did not treat nor refer peri-implant disease, including significantly more non-implant providers and dentists without implant training. Maintenance armamentarium commonly included floss (76.3%), prophylaxis (73.9%), plastic curettes (43.3%) and stainless-steel ultrasonics (38.0%). Brushing (86.5%), flossing (73.9%) and interdental brush use (68.3%) were most commonly recommended. Implant OHI was repeated routinely by 57.4% of dentists who provided it. Dentists with greater implant training and experience were more likely to perform reviews and complex maintenance procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Peri-implant diagnostics performed, treatments provided and armamentarium varied among dentists. Implant providers and those with higher levels of training had more preventative approaches to implant OHI. Possible shortcomings in disease management and OHI reinforcement were identified.

Questionnaire surveys - sources of error and implications for design, reporting and appraisal

Questionnaire surveys of dentists are a commonly used research method which can yield important results. Nevertheless, in order to give reliable information, surveys must be carefully designed to avoid bias. The challenge of planning, designing and implementing a questionnaire study is often underestimated. While headline response rate is commonly used as an indication of survey quality, there are four potential areas of survey error. These are coverage, sampling, measurement and response. These four areas of error are discussed, with examples from the current literature, to assist readers in critically appraising questionnaire studies. We make 12 key recommendations to researchers to help avoid bias in their research; approaches to response enhancement are also considered. Reporting guidelines for questionnaire studies are suggested which improve transparency and assist in understanding of research methodologies and results. We have termed these guidelines: Reporting Items for Surveys and Questionnaires (RISQ). In conclusion, there is no single solution that can guarantee a successful study. Conversely, failure to pay careful attention to any one of many crucial aspects of survey design can be the downfall of an otherwise robust study.

Virtual versus jaw simulation in Oral implant education: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

This research aims to investigate the evaluation methods of teaching oral implant clinical courses and estimate the effectiveness of a virtual simulation platform.

METHODS

Eighty second- and third-year undergraduates in Lanzhou University were recruited and randomized to either three experimental groups or one control group. The subjects undertook theoretical examinations to test their basic level of knowledge after training in similarly unified knowledge courses. Each student group then participated in an eight-hour operating training session. An operation test on pig mandible was conducted, followed by a second theoretical examination. The assessment consists of three distinct parts: a subjective operating score by a clinical senior teacher, an implant accuracy analysis in cone-beam computed tomography (angular, apical, and entrance deviation), and comparison of the two theoretical examinations. Finally, students completed a questionnaire gauging their understanding of the virtual simulation.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the four groups in first theoretical examination (P > 0.05); the second theoretical scores of the V-J and J-V group (62.90 ± 3.70, 60.05 ± 2.73) were significantly higher than the first time (57.05 ± 3.92, P < 0.05), while no difference between the V (57.10 ± 3.66) and J (56.89 ± 2.67) groups was found. Thus, the combination of V-J was effective in improving students' theoretical scores. The V-J and J-V groups had higher scores on operation (73.98 ± 4.58, 71.85 ± 4.67) and showed better implant precision.

CONCLUSION

Virtual simulation education, especially with a jaw simulation model, could improve students' implantology achievements and training. Currently study found that the V-J group may performed better than the J-V group in oral implant teaching.

Dental implant maintenance teaching in Australia-A survey of education providers

INTRODUCTION

Implant treatments and peri-implant maintenance continue apace, while the evidence for implant maintenance and home hygiene continues to be developed. Information sources for dental practitioners and patients in peri-implant health maintenance and disease management are generally not known. This study investigated the implant maintenance topics taught, the discipline backgrounds of convenors and presenters and information delivery methods within implant dentistry teaching in Australia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An online survey was distributed to 56 convenors of implant dentistry and maintenance education programmes in Australia, garnering responses from 24 individuals which outlined 43 different education programmes.

RESULTS

Lectures were the main delivery method for implant maintenance information across the different course types. Peri-implant diagnostics were generally taught according to current literature recommendations, but coverage varied in topics where the evidence is yet to be established (eg home hygiene, professional maintenance and implant review). Some educators reported awareness of limitations in their programmes.

CONCLUSION

Implant dentistry education programmes in Australia vary widely in teaching implant maintenance, coverage of which should be current and evidence-based at all education levels. The structure of implant dentistry teaching at the continuing professional development level requires further development.