Premium
Bone quality assessment in routine dental implant treatment among B razilian and S wedish specialists
Author(s) -
Lindh Christina,
Oliveira Guilherme Henrique C.,
Leles Cláudio R.,
Carmo Matias Freire Maria,
RibeiroRotta Rejane F.
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
clinical oral implants research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.407
H-Index - 161
eISSN - 1600-0501
pISSN - 0905-7161
DOI - 10.1111/clr.12221
Subject(s) - medicine , osseointegration , dentistry , periodontology , implant , dental implant , quality (philosophy) , oral and maxillofacial radiology , surgery , philosophy , epistemology
Abstract Objectives To investigate the interpretation and assessment of bone quality among B razilian and S wedish 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 B razil while the S wedish version was W eb‐based and sent to specialists in periodontology and maxillofacial surgery. The response rate in the B razilian group was 15.4% and in the S wedish 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 B razilian 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.