Topic: Basic researchTopic: Basic research

Presented at the 23rd Annual Scientific Meeting of the European Association for Osseointegration25-27 September 2014, Rome, Italy

Presented at the 23rd Annual Scientific Meeting of the European Association for Osseointegration25-27 September 2014, Rome, Italy

ConclusionsConclusions

Background and AimBackground and Aim

132132

Oral implant placement and restoration by undergraduate students: clinical outcomes & student perceptions.

ResultsResults

Methods and MaterialsMethods and Materials

Temmerman, A.1,4, Meeus, M.1, Dhondt, R.1, Wierinck, E.2, Naert, I.3 & Quirynen, M.1

1 KU Leuven, Department of Oral Health Sciences, Section of Periodontology.2 KU Leuven, Department of Oral Health Sciences, Pre-Clinical Training Centre.

3 KU Leuven, Department of Oral Health Sciences, Section of Restorative Dentistry. 4 Private Practice for Periodontology & Implant Dentistry, ParoPlus, Aalst.

As oral implant dentistry, nowadays, has become part of mainstream dentistry, universities are developing and starting to implement an academic, evidence-based implant dentistry education at all levels in order to prepare dental professionals to fulfill the growing treatment needs. This study describes how oral implant dentistry is educated at the KU Leuven and focusses on the implant related clinical outcomes. Furthermore, the perspectives of the participating undergraduate students are analyzed, for possible improvement of the oral implant dentistry education.

Clinical oral implant dentistry training at the KU Leuven starts in the 5th semester of a 5-year dental curriculum and contains theoretical lectures, pre-clinical hands-on workshops and clinical (surgical/prosthetic) experience. Students who were able to find a suitable patient could enter the surgical/prosthetic program. Questionnaires were used to investigate the perceptions of the undergraduate students towards the educational program. Intra-oral, long-cone radiographs were taken at implant insertion, at healing abutment connection, at restoration/prosthesis insertion and after 1 and 2 years of functional loading. The marginal bone level was measured from the implant-abutment connection to the first visible bone-to-implant contact (BIC) mesial and distal. Intra-oral, long-cone radiographs were taken at implant insertion, at healing abutment connection, at restoration/prosthesis insertion and after 1 and 2 years of functional loading.

One hundred and twelve implants were placed by undergraduate students in 56 patients. Two implants failed to integrate in 1 patient. One implant was lost due to peri-implantitis after 1.5 years in function. After a follow-up time of 2 years the cumulative implant survival rate, at implant level, was 97.4%. Implants were placed in average 0.55mm subcrestally. The mean marginal bone loss after 1 and 2 years in function was 0.35mm and 0.39mm respectively.

Concerning both theoretical and practical education and training 80 to 85% of the students were very satisfied and they considered this sufficient to perform implant placement under close supervision.

Figure 1: Practical hands-on workshop: ‘the overdenture in the lower jaw on 4 implants’.

Figure 2: Practical hands-on workshop: ‘3 unit bridge on multi-unit abutments’.

The results show that the clinical outcome of implant treatment performed by undergraduate students in the clinical implant program is similar to that reported by experienced clinicians/research teams. Clinical, surgical as well as restorative, experience in addition to theoretical and preclinical education seems beneficial when implementing implant dentistry as a part of the curriculum in the programs of dental schools. Students were mostly satisfied by the way clinical oral implant dentistry is organized. Therefore, further development of clinical implant education in undergraduate programs is mandatory to overcome shortcomings.