Confidence and Current Practices of Oral Health Practitioners in New Zealand Who Care for Patients With Dental Implants-A Cross-Sectional Study.

INTRODUCTION: Dental plaque biofilm is a common instigator of peri-implant disease, but this may be managed with proper patient education and oral hygiene instruction. Oral health professionals should be practising evidence-based dentistry when providing care for patients with dental implants, and be confident doing so.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A quantitative cross-sectional study design was utilised with a survey to explore the confidence of oral health practitioners in managing, diagnosing and treating patients with dental implants, identifying protocols in use for peri-implant disease, oral hygiene instructions and preventative care. All oral health practitioners who care for dental implants within their scope, and who were registered with the Dental Council of New Zealand (DCNZ), were invited to participate in this study (n = 1842). Demographic data were obtained, and practitioner confidence in managing patients with dental implants and protocols used to guide dental implant maintenance were collected.

RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-seven New Zealand oral health practitioners participated in this study. Participants were more confident maintaining healthy implants (81%) than diseased implants (40%) (p < 0.05). Sixty-five percent of dental hygienists (DHs) were confident maintaining diseased implants, compared to 40% oral health therapists (OHTs) (p < 0.05) and 28% general dental practitioners (GDPs) (p < 0.001). Almost all of the DHs (96%), but only half of the group of OHTs (54%) reported confidence in knowing when to refer implant cases for further maintenance (p < 0.001). OHTs were the least confident assessing and diagnosing implant health and disease, although they were more confident assessing health and disease compared to diagnosing (72% and 60% respectively). Overall, 50% of participants reported that the training provided as part of their qualification gave them the confidence to maintain dental implant care (p < 0.05). No formal implant maintenance protocols were reportedly used by 48% OHTs, 39% DHs and 28% GDPs. Oral hygiene, homecare instructions and clinical equipment preferences varied between practitioners and depended on whether diseased or healthy implants were being managed.

CONCLUSION: A lack of consistency indicated a need for further professional education to ensure evidence-based practices are being utilised when implant maintenance care is provided.