|Year : 2019 | Volume
| Issue : 1 | Page : 8-11
Constraints among patients while opting dental implant as a treatment option
Manish Sinha1, Manisha Agarwal1, Sanket S Shah1, Siddharth Desai1, Ankur Desai2, Harshal Champaneri3
1 Department of Prosthodontics, Vaidik Dental College and Research Centre, Daman, India
2 Department of Endodontics, Vaidik Dental College and Research Centre, Daman, India
3 Department of Periodontics, Vaidik Dental College and Research Centre, Daman, India
|Date of Web Publication||26-Jun-2019|
Dr. Sanket S Shah
Department of Prosthodontics, Vaidik Dental College and Research Centre, Daman
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
Aim: To assess the constraints among patients while opting dental implant as a treatment option among the randomly selected sample of dental patients attending the outpatient department (OPD) of Vaidik Dental College and Research Centre, Daman, India. Materials and Methods: Information on demographic characteristics, knowledge about implant as an option for missing tooth replacement, source of information, and knowledge about other options of tooth replacement were obtained from patients visiting various dental OPDs of hospital and private dental clinics using nationwide self-explanatory survey. Results: Among the 1000 responses retrieved, 27% of the respondents felt moderately well informed about the dental implant treatment. Only 9% of the respondents had dental implant treatment before and 17% felt well informed about the different alternatives of replacing missing teeth. Dentists were the main source of information regarding dental implant treatment modality followed by friends and electronic media. A total of 55.6% of the respondents felt implant to be as good as own teeth in function, whereas high cost was the major limiting factor for implant treatment. Conclusion: A total of 56% of Daman population were aware of dental implant as an alternative for replacing missing teeth. Necessary efforts and measures should be made to raise the awareness of dental implant treatment in the country.
Keywords: Attitude, awareness, Daman, dental implants, knowledge
|How to cite this article:|
Sinha M, Agarwal M, Shah SS, Desai S, Desai A, Champaneri H. Constraints among patients while opting dental implant as a treatment option. Int J Oral Care Res 2019;7:8-11
|How to cite this URL:|
Sinha M, Agarwal M, Shah SS, Desai S, Desai A, Champaneri H. Constraints among patients while opting dental implant as a treatment option. Int J Oral Care Res [serial online] 2019 [cited 2020 Dec 4];7:8-11. Available from: https://www.ijocr.org/text.asp?2019/7/1/8/261322
| Introduction|| |
Dental implant is an artificial root, which is surgically inserted into the jawbone to support a single tooth replacement, fixed partial, complete denture, or maxillofacial prosthesis. Dental implants are increasingly becoming a widely accepted treatment approach in dentistry for the replacement of missing teeth. The success and good prognosis of this treatment has made dental implant very popular among the dentists, offering implant-supported rehabilitation to patients having lost teeth, or those with severely compromised bone structure.,,,, Lack of adequate awareness exists in people about dental implant as a treatment modality. Awareness among patients regarding the procedure can help in eliminating the negative image of the procedure that may have been caused due to lack of adequate communication., In India, dentists are the main source of information about implants.,,,,,, The right kind of information, if channelized to the patients correctly, will further help in promoting this excellent treatment as a treatment option among the patients.,, To the best of our knowledge, no data are available in the literature, which evaluates the dental patients’ awareness and knowledge toward dental implants in Daman. Hence, the aim of this survey was to assess the constraints among patients while opting dental implant as a treatment option among the randomly selected sample of dental patients attending outpatient department of Vaidik Dental College and Research Centre, Daman, India.
| Materials and Methods|| |
A survey was conducted through printed and online questionnaire composing of multiple questions with the intention of evaluating dental implant awareness among the Daman population in 2018 (January to June). A random sampling method with convenient sample size was used. Questionnaire was prepared both in English and Gujarati (local language) to facilitate completion and to get better understanding of the questions by the respondents. The questionnaires were handed to the patients during their regular dental visits. All the respondents were informed about the aim and objective of the study. Those who were not willing to give informed consent were excluded from the study. So of the 1500 respondents, only 1000 respondents agreed to participate in the survey. For the purpose of the study, the sample was grouped according to sex, age, and education. The survey form included self-explanatory questions, which were in correspondence to previous studies conducted by Chowdhary et al. and Berge.
| Results|| |
On the basis of 1000 responses retrieved, it was found that only 9% of the respondents had undergone dental implant treatment before. Respondents in the age group of 21–40 years were the most well informed regarding dental implants. Among the 1000 respondents, 17% were well informed, 41% moderately well informed, and 36% poorly informed regarding different alternatives for replacing missing teeth. Most were aware of complete dentures (59%), followed closely by implant-supported dentures (56%) and partial dentures (55%) as an alternative for the replacement of missing teeth. A total of 113 respondents were not aware of any alternatives given. Only 8% of the respondents felt very well informed about dental implant, 14% well informed, 27% moderately well informed, and 47% poorly informed. A total of 47% of the respondents felt moderately well informed regarding the source of information about alternatives for replacement of missing teeth. Most of them stated their dentists (53.6%), followed by friends, relatives, Internet, magazines, and newspapers as the various sources of information regarding dental implants. A total of 69.9% of the respondents wished to get more information about dental implants, and of those, 72.16% wished to get it from the dentists, 16.5% from the Internet, and 2.96% from friends and relatives [Figure 1]. Approximately 80.5% (816) of the respondents were willing to consider dental implant treatment, if needed, whereas 19.5% (197) refused for it. Regarding the advantages of the nonremovable versus removable denture, 51.4% reported “more comfortable in the mouth,” 47.8% defined better in “appearance” and 55.6% reported that nonremovable dentures “are as good as own teeth in function.” When all the respondents were questioned on constraints while opting dental implant as a treatment option, most respondents stated high costs (80.2%), followed by long treatment time, need of surgery, and inadequate knowledge as the main limitations of dental implant treatment and the major reasons for refusing such treatment options [Figure 2].,
| Discussion|| |
Replacement of missing teeth by means of implant-supported prosthesis for aesthetic and functional rehabilitation has turn out to be an established and extensively used treatment modality in dentistry. Among the 1000 respondents in this study, majority of those who had heard of dental implants were among the age group of 21–40 years (54.5%) and with the education of university level or higher (62.3%). This can be attributed to the increased interest in dental treatment among the younger generation and the changing attitudes toward the advancements in medical and dental technology. Factors such as high level of education coupled with a reasonably higher income and age can influence the findings of this research. Berge conducted a study in Norway and claimed people of ages 45 years and above, with a high level of education were well informed about dental implants, which is concurrent with the findings reported by Chowdhary et al. that stated respondents in the age groups of 25–44 years with a college or university education were more aware of dental implants in India. In this study, among the different options to rehabilitate missing tooth, 56% knew about dental implants as a treatment option. The results of this study were significantly different from the results reported in the studies by Zimmer et al. and Berge, which reported high level of awareness as 77% and 70.1%, respectively. In this study, only 47% of the respondents felt moderately well informed regarding the different sources of information about alternatives for replacement of missing teeth. Thus, it is imperative to endorse dental implant treatment and upsurge the awareness of such advanced treatment modalities in the society. A total of 53.6% of the respondents stated their dentists as their source of knowledge about dental implants followed by relatives and friends, Internet, someone who has received an implant, newspapers, or magazines. This is in agreement with the studies by Pommer et al. Chowdhary et al. Satpathy et al. Pommer et al. Mukatash et al. and Kumar et al. all of which stated dentists as the main source of information. This finding is contrary to that reported by a study carried out in the USA, stating media as the main source., Thus, it is important to promote dental implant treatment, most importantly by means of effective communication between patients and their dentists and other options such as highlighting the usage of dental implants in health-related articles in newspapers or health magazines. As dentists were found to be the major information source, dental education must include suitable implantology courses to provide appropriate and realistic implant knowledge. A total of 51.4% of those questioned reported that nonremovable dentures were more comfortable in the mouth, 47.8% defined it to be better in appearance, and 55.6% reported it to be as good as own teeth in function. High costs (80.2%), long treatment period (41.2%), and need for surgery (37.9%) were the main disadvantages of the implant treatment according to patients. These results were consistent with the other American and Japanese studies, which reported similar results., As high costs were the main reason for not choosing implant therapy, it is vital to highlight the patients that quality of life overshadows high cost of implants. The benefits and drawbacks of different types of treatment modalities should be properly explained so they can make a learned choice.
| Conclusion|| |
Bearing the results of our study, it is vital to raise the awareness of dental implant treatment in Daman. This survey among the patients in Daman showed that many of them were unaware about using dental implants as an option for replacing missing teeth. As dentists were the main source of information regarding dental implants, further efforts should be made by them and the governing bodies to take necessary steps for creating awareness among the people. As most of the patients found dental implant treatment to be expensive and unaffordable, efforts should be made to reduce the cost of dental implants to a more affordable rate. Adequate awareness and ironic, factual, and exhaustive data are the indispensable tools that project dental implant–retained prostheses as the best choice for the tooth and lost maxillofacial tissue replacement. The dentist as a professional has the foremost role to play in this regard, and this can be achieved by executing patient education programs and counseling centers on dental implant usage and advantages to concoct a patient’s mind.
Financial support and sponsorship
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References|| |
Pommer B, Zechner W, Watzak G, Ulm C, Watzek G, Tepper G. Progress and trends in patients’ mindset on dental implants. I: Level of information, sources of information and need for patient information. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22:223-9.
Lindh T, Gunne J, Tillberg A, Molin M. A meta-analysis of implants in partial edentulism. Clin Oral Implants Res 1998;9:80-90.
Aglietta M, Siciliano VI, Zwahlen M, Brägger U, Pjetursson BE, Lang NP, et al
. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant supported fixed dental prostheses with cantilever extensions after an observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20:441-51.
den Hartog L, Slater JJ, Vissink A, Meijer HJ, Raghoebar GM. Treatment outcome of immediate, early and conventional single-tooth implants in the aesthetic zone: A systematic review to survival, bone level, soft-tissue, aesthetics and patient satisfaction. J Clin Periodontol 2008;35:1073-86.
Sonoyama W, Kuboki T, Okamoto S, Suzuki H, Arakawa H, Kanyama M, et al
. Quality of life assessment in patients with implant-supported and resin-bonded fixed prosthesis for bounded edentulous spaces. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13:359-64.
Narby B, Bagewitz IC, Soderfeldt B. Factors explaining desire for dental implant therapy: Analysis of the results from a longitudinal study. Int J Prosthodont 2011;24:437-44.
Narby B, Kronström M, Söderfeldt B, Palmqvist S. Changes in attitudes toward desire for implant treatment: A longitudinal study of a middle-aged and older Swedish population. Int J Prosthodont 2008;21:481-5.
Brunski JB. In vivo
bone response to biomechanical loading at the bone/dental-implant interface. Adv Dent Res 1999;13:99-119.
Chowdhary R, Mankani N, Chandraker NK. Awareness of dental implants as a treatment choice in urban Indian populations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25:305-8.
Zimmer CM, Zimmer WM, Williams J, Liesener J. Public awareness and acceptance of dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992;7:228-32.
de Bruyn H, Collaert B, Lindén U, Björn AL. Patient’s opinion and treatment outcome of fixed rehabilitation on Brånemark implants. A 3-year follow-up study in private dental practices. Clin Oral Implants Res 1997;8:265-71.
Adell R, Eriksson B, Lekholm U, Brånemark PI, Jemt T. Long-term follow-up study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of totally edentulous jaws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990;5:347-59.
Bergendal T, Engquist B. Implant-supported overdentures: A longitudinal prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13:253-62.
Friberg B, Gröndahl K, Lekholm U, Brånemark PI. Long-term follow-up of severely atrophic edentulous mandibles reconstructed with short Brånemark implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2000;2:184-9.
van Steenberghe D, Quirynen M, Naert I, Maffei G, Jacobs R. Marginal bone loss around implants retaining hinging mandibular overdentures, at 4-, 8- and 12-years follow-up. J Clin Periodontol 2001;28:628-33.
Satpathy A, Porwal A, Bhattacharya A, Sahu PK. Patient awareness, acceptance and perceived cost of dental implants as a treatment modality for replacement of missing teeth: A survey in Bhubaneshwar and Cuttack. Int J Public Health Dent 2011:2:1-7.
Lambrecht JT, Cardone E, Kühl S. Status report on dental implantology in Switzerland in 2006. A cross-sectional survey. Eur J Oral Implantol 2010;3:71-4.
Berge TI. Public awareness, information sources and evaluation of oral implant treatment in Norway. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000;11:401-8.
Pommer B, Zechner W, Watzak G, Ulm C, Watzek G, Tepper G. Progress and trends in patients’ mindset on dental implants. II: Implant acceptance, patient-perceived costs and patient satisfaction. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22:106-12.
Mukatash GN, Al-Rousan M, Al-Sakarna B. Needs and demands of prosthetic treatment among two groups of individuals. Indian J Dent Res 2010;21:564-7.
] [Full text]
Kumar RC, Pratap KV, Venkateswararao G. Dental implants as an option in replacing missing teeth: A patient awareness survey in Khammam, Andhra Pradesh. Indian J Dent Sci 2011;3:33.
Kent G. Effects of osseointegrated implants on psychological and social well-being: a literature review. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68:515-8.
Tepper G, Haas R, Mailath G, Teller C, Zechner W, Watzak G, et al
. Representative marketing-oriented study on implants in the Austrian population. I. Level of information, sources of information and need for patient information. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003;14:621-33.
Akagawa Y, Rachi Y, Matsumoto T, Tsuru H. Attitudes of removable denture patients toward dental implants. J Prosthet Dent 1988;60:362-4.
[Figure 1], [Figure 2]