著者
大坪 由佳 田代 教二 添島 正和 大森 桂二 山田 俊介 森永 健三 木村 瞳 岡松 加恵 山本 勝己 長島 義之 山崎 裕 城戸 寛史 松浦 正朗
出版者
福岡歯科大学学会
雑誌
福岡歯科大学学会雑誌 (ISSN:03850064)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.33, no.1, pp.11-19, 2007-03-31
被引用文献数
1

The aim of this study was to investigate a treatment policy for the practices of Kyushu area dentists related to dental implant restorations for single missing teeth of the lower first molars and edentulous mandibles. Questionnaires were sent to 43 dentists practicing in the Kyusyu area. Valid answers were obtained from 23 dentists. During 2003, 20 clinics had performed various numbers of implant treatments, and a total of 539 cases had been treated with implant prostheses. During 2004, 21 clinics had performed implant treatments, and a total of 679 cases had been treated with implant prostheses. Thirteen clinics had performed single-tooth implant restorations of missing lower first molars during 2003 and 2004. The totals of the cases were 47 such cases during 2003, and 56 such cases during 2004. Conversely, 406 cases of missing lower first molars had been treated with conventional bridges during 2003, and 423 such cases during 2004. Only 5 clinics in 2003 and 6 clinics in 2004 had cases with edentulous mandibles treated with implant-supported prostheses. The totals of the cases were 19 cases during 2003 and 18 cases during 2004. Conversely, more than 300 cases during 2003 and 450 cases during 2004 had been treated with conventional full denture. Fourteen of 23 dentists strongly recommended implant therapy to patients with single missing teeth of the lower first molars and 10 dentists recommend implant therapy to the patients with edentulous mandibles.
著者
常岡 由美子 藤野 佳代子 月成 愛華 山本 勝己 大坪 由佳 岡松 加恵 森永 健三 長島 義之 松永 興昌 城戸 寛史 高橋 裕 佐藤 博信 松浦 正朗
出版者
福岡歯科大学学会
雑誌
福岡歯科大学学会雑誌 (ISSN:03850064)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.32, no.2, pp.51-59, 2006-06-30

Treatment with mandibular bone-anchored implant bridges can solve long-term problems of prosthetic rehabilitations in totally or partially edentulous patients. However, a bone-anchored bridge creates a narrow and deep space between the base of the super-structure and alveolar ridge, and therefore, a patient's personal hygiene with a bone-anchored bridge is more difficult to perform than with an implant-supported overdenture. The aim of this study is to evaluate the oral hygiene status of patients with mandibular bone-anchored bridges, and to analyze their problems. From September 2000 to April 2004 in our hospital, 10 cases (5 males and 5 females; average age 48.9 years) with totally and partially edentulous mandibles were treated using implant-supported bone-anchored bridges with immediate or conventional loading. Oral hygiene instructions were given immediately after delivery of the superstructure, and follow-up examinations were provided for a period ranging from 9 months to 4 years and 5 months. The oral hygiene status of each patient was classified into one of 4 levels ("excellent", "good", "marginal" and "poor") at the follow-up observations. As a result, 1 patient (44 year-old female) was evaluated as "excellent", 2 (average age; 58.5 years) were "good", 5 (average age; 44.4 years) were "marginal" and 2 (average age; 53.0 years) were "poor". The ages of the patients with bone-anchored bridges were relatively young (26-70 years), and therefore, no observable tendency was recognized among different generations in the ability to perform oral hygiene. As a result, the patient's skill involved in cleaning and understanding the importance of oral hygiene was considered important for maintaining a healthy oral condition. We conclude that continuous professional oral hygiene care by dental hygienists is needed for patients with bone-anchored implant bridges.