File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Preferences of dental care providers in maintaining compromised teeth in relation to their professional status: Implants instead of periodontally involved maxillary molars?

TitlePreferences of dental care providers in maintaining compromised teeth in relation to their professional status: Implants instead of periodontally involved maxillary molars?
Authors
KeywordsMaxillary molar
Specialisation
Survey
Treatment decision
Issue Date2011
PublisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/CLR
Citation
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2011, v. 22 n. 2, p. 143-150 How to Cite?
AbstractAim: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the dentists' decision making in the maxillary molar region to find out how it is influenced by general practitioners' and specialists' characteristics as well as by the external evidence. Material and methods: A questionnaire was developed containing clinical cases and statements to assess practitioners' opinions on the treatment of periodontally involved maxillary molars and implant therapy with sinus grafting. Data were analysed with respect to the dentists' age and speciality. Results: Three hundred and forty questionnaires were evaluated (24% from universities, 76% from educational courses, overall response rate 35.1%). Forty six per cent of all participants indicated they had specialised, 52% placed dental implants, while 33% performed sinus grafting and 64% periodontal surgeries. Forty six per cent were against or were indecisive about having sinus grafting performed on themselves. The treatment proposals given for the clinical cases revealed a preference among older dentists and general practitioners for regenerative treatments even when these were not evidence based in through-and-through furcation involvements. Resective therapies were most often selected by periodontists. Prosthodontists tended to prefer more invasive treatment options with extractions and augmentations. More experienced general practitioners favoured conventional fixed dental prostheses in free-end situations or no treatment rather than the complicated augmentation procedures, which were preferred by younger dentists. Conclusions: Implant placement seems to be widely accepted by almost all subjects, who may either place implants themselves or refer patients. More information seems to be needed on the indications for regenerative therapies for furcation involved maxillary molars, and guidelines required for decision making in complex clinical situations. © 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/142271
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 3.464
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.427
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorZitzmann, NUen_HK
dc.contributor.authorScherrer, SSen_HK
dc.contributor.authorWeiger, Ren_HK
dc.contributor.authorLang, NPen_HK
dc.contributor.authorWalter, Cen_HK
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-28T02:41:58Z-
dc.date.available2011-10-28T02:41:58Z-
dc.date.issued2011en_HK
dc.identifier.citationClinical Oral Implants Research, 2011, v. 22 n. 2, p. 143-150en_HK
dc.identifier.issn0905-7161en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/142271-
dc.description.abstractAim: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the dentists' decision making in the maxillary molar region to find out how it is influenced by general practitioners' and specialists' characteristics as well as by the external evidence. Material and methods: A questionnaire was developed containing clinical cases and statements to assess practitioners' opinions on the treatment of periodontally involved maxillary molars and implant therapy with sinus grafting. Data were analysed with respect to the dentists' age and speciality. Results: Three hundred and forty questionnaires were evaluated (24% from universities, 76% from educational courses, overall response rate 35.1%). Forty six per cent of all participants indicated they had specialised, 52% placed dental implants, while 33% performed sinus grafting and 64% periodontal surgeries. Forty six per cent were against or were indecisive about having sinus grafting performed on themselves. The treatment proposals given for the clinical cases revealed a preference among older dentists and general practitioners for regenerative treatments even when these were not evidence based in through-and-through furcation involvements. Resective therapies were most often selected by periodontists. Prosthodontists tended to prefer more invasive treatment options with extractions and augmentations. More experienced general practitioners favoured conventional fixed dental prostheses in free-end situations or no treatment rather than the complicated augmentation procedures, which were preferred by younger dentists. Conclusions: Implant placement seems to be widely accepted by almost all subjects, who may either place implants themselves or refer patients. More information seems to be needed on the indications for regenerative therapies for furcation involved maxillary molars, and guidelines required for decision making in complex clinical situations. © 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S.en_HK
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/CLRen_HK
dc.relation.ispartofClinical Oral Implants Researchen_HK
dc.rightsThe definitive version is available at www3.interscience.wiley.com-
dc.subjectMaxillary molaren_HK
dc.subjectSpecialisationen_HK
dc.subjectSurveyen_HK
dc.subjectTreatment decisionen_HK
dc.subject.meshDental Implants-
dc.subject.meshDentist's Practice Patterns - statistics and numerical data-
dc.subject.meshGeneral Practice, Dental-
dc.subject.meshMaxilla - surgery-
dc.subject.meshMolar - surgery-
dc.titlePreferences of dental care providers in maintaining compromised teeth in relation to their professional status: Implants instead of periodontally involved maxillary molars?en_HK
dc.typeArticleen_HK
dc.identifier.emailLang, NP:nplang@hkucc.hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityLang, NP=rp00031en_HK
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02062.xen_HK
dc.identifier.pmid21198899-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-78651375270en_HK
dc.identifier.hkuros184308en_US
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-78651375270&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_HK
dc.identifier.volume22en_HK
dc.identifier.issue2en_HK
dc.identifier.spage143en_HK
dc.identifier.epage150en_HK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000286145000003-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Statesen_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridZitzmann, NU=7006832948en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridScherrer, SS=40361669100en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridWeiger, R=7003366309en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLang, NP=7201577367en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridWalter, C=8424771100en_HK
dc.identifier.citeulike8622938-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats