Dental and Medical Problems

Dent Med Probl
Index Copernicus (ICV 2020) – 128.41
MEiN – 70 pts
CiteScore (2021) – 2.0
JCI – 0.5
Average rejection rate (2021) – 81.35%
ISSN 1644-387X (print)
ISSN 2300-9020 (online)
Periodicity – quarterly

Download PDF

Dental and Medical Problems

2019, vol. 56, nr 3, July-September, p. 223–230

doi: 10.17219/dmp/108659

Publication type: original article

Language: English

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 Open Access

Trends in implant dentistry: Implant systems, complications and barriers in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Trendy w implantologii stomatologicznej – systemy implantologiczne, powikłania i ograniczenia w stolicy Arabii Saudyjskiej, Rijadzie

Rajaa Abdullah Albugami1,B,C,F, Steph Smith2,D,E,F, Mohammed Al-Sheikh Hassan3,C, Khalid Almas2,A,D,E,F

1 Department of Periodontics, Riyadh Dental Center, King Saud Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

2 Division of Periodontology, Department of Preventive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia

3 Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK


Background. Patients who are partially dentate or edentulous can receive both conventional and implantsupported fixed prostheses, which leads to improvement in function, esthetics and self-esteem. Currently, implant dentistry is one of the fastest-growing disciplines in dentistry.
Objectives. The aim of the study was to assess the education and training of dentists practicing implant therapy in the Riyadh region of Saudi Arabia, including their preferred dental implant systems, the clinical complications experienced as well as the barriers to implant therapy they encounter.
Material and Methods. A self-administered questionnaire was distributed among dentists in Riyadh performing dental implants in both the state and private sectors. The questionnaire included demographic data, such as nationality, the practitioner’s affiliated specialist category and their respective qualifications. Other data included their main sources of education pertaining to implant dentistry, the most commonly used implant systems, common clinical complications, and barriers to implant therapy. A descriptive statistical analysis of the data was carried out.
Results. A significant majority of non-Saudi dental practitioners were employed in the private sector (p = 0.001), whereas a significant majority of Saudi dental practitioners were employed in the state sector (p = 0.001). The largest group of practitioners performing implants were general dentists (48.1%). The 3iTM implant system was the most widely utilized (35.4%). Failed osseointegration (12.6%) and peri-implantitis (12%) were the most common clinical complications. The biggest barrier to placing implants was the cost of implants to patients (59.1%).
Conclusion. Fundamental to implant practice is the clinical practitioner and patient selection. The utilization of implant systems should preferably be based on the chemical properties of implant surfaces which promote early osseointegration. Comparative studies investigating the reasons for failed osseointegration and other clinical complications are needed locally and internationally. Further research, together with advanced clinical specialist training, can lead to improvement in the quality of implant therapy for the benefit of patients.

Key words

implant practice survey, implant systems, implant complications, hydrophilic implants, hydrophobic implants

Słowa kluczowe

przegląd praktyk implantologicznych, systemy implantologiczne, powikłania implantologiczne, implanty hydrofilowe, implanty hydrofobowe

References (33)

  1. Amjad F, Aziz S. Trends, awareness, and attitudes of patients towards replacement of missing teeth at University College of Dentistry. Pakistan Oral & Dental Journal. 2014;34(1):190–193.
  2. Nickenig HJ, Wichmann M, Terheyden H, Kreppel M. Oral health-related quality of life and implant therapy: A prospective multicenter study of preoperative, intermediate, and posttreatment assessment. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2016;44(6):753–757.
  3. Akeel R. Attitudes of Saudi male patients toward the replacement of teeth. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;90(6):571–577.
  4. Al-Johany S, Al Zoman HA, Al Juhaini M, Al Refeai M. Dental patients’ awareness and knowledge in using dental implants as an option in replacing missing teeth: A survey in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Saudi Dent J. 2010;22(4):183–188.
  5. Al-Hamdan K, Meshrif H. Patient’s satisfaction with dental implants in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Saudi Dent J. 2007;19(2):91–96.
  6. Akeredolu PA, Adeyemo WL, Gbotolorun OM, James O, Olorunfemi BO, Arotiba GT. Knowledge, attitude and practice of dental implanto­logy in Nigeria. Implant Dent. 2007;16(1):110–118.
  7. Derks J, Schaller D, Håkansson J, Wennström JL, Tomasi C, Berglundh T. Effectiveness of implant therapy analyzed in a Swedish population: Prevalence of peri-implantitis. J Dent Res. 2016;95(1):43–49.
  8. Al-Houtan T, Smith S, Almas K. Survey of dental implant practices in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. Odontostomatol Trop. 2018;41(163):31–41.
  9. Academy Report. Peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis: A current understanding of their diagnoses and clinical implications. J Periodont. 2013;84(4):436–443.
  10. Goodacre CJ, Bernal G, Rungcharassaeng K, Kan JY. Clinical complications with implants and implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;90(2):121–132.
  11. Mir-Mari J, Mir-Orfila P, Figueiredo R, Valmaseda-Castellón E, Gay-Escoda C. Prevalence of peri-implant diseases. A cross-sectional study based on a private practice environment. J Clin Periodont. 2012;39(5):490–494.
  12. Atieh MA, Alsabeeha NH, Faggion CM Jr, Duncan WJ. The frequency of peri-implant diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Periodontol. 2013;84(11):1586–1598.
  13. Vohra F, Habib R. Knowledge and attitude of dentists toward implant retained restorations in Saudi Arabia. Niger J Clin Pract. 2015;18(3):312–317.
  14. Global Media Insight. Posted in Infographics, 2018. Accessed December 3, 2018.
  15. Simonis P, Dufour T, Tenenbaum H. Long-term implant survival and success: A 10–16-year follow-up of non-submerged dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;21(7):772–777.
  16. Brandt RI, Fitzpatrick BJ, Moloney FB, Bartold PM. Continuing dental education in osseointegrated implants. A survey. Austral Dent J. 2000;45(4):285–288.
  17. Shah RJ, Shah SG, Patel GC. Trends in implant dentistry among private dental practitioners of Gujarat: A survey. J Dent Imp. 2014;4(1):48–52.
  18. 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(1):71–74.
  19. Sartoretto SC, Alves AT, Resende RF, Calasans-Maia J, Granjeiro JM, Calasans-Maia MD. Early osseointegration driven by the surface chemistry and wettability of dental implants. J Appl Oral Sci. 2015;23(3):279–287.
  20. Wennerberg A, Jimbo R, Stübinger S, Obrecht M, Dard M, Berner S. Nanostructures and hydrophilicity influence osseointegration: A biomechanical study in the rabbit tibia. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014;25(9):1041–1050.
  21. Vasak C, Busenlechner D, Schwarze UY, et al. Early bone apposition to hydrophilic and hydrophobic titanium implant surfaces: A histologic and histomorphometric study in minipigs. Clin Oral Impl Res. 2014;25(12):1378–1385.
  22. Donos N, Hamlet S, Lang NP, et al. Gene expression profile of osseointegration of a hydrophilic compared with a hydrophobic micro­rough implant surface. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011;22(4):365–372.
  23. Lang NP, Salvi GE, Huynh-Ba G, Ivanovski S, Donos N, Bosshardt DD. Early osseointegration to hydrophilic and hydrophobic implant surfaces in humans. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011;22(4):349–356.
  24. Schliephake H, Scharnweber D, Dard M, Sewing A, Aref A, Roessler S. Functionalization of dental implant surfaces using adhesion molecules. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2005;73(1):88–96.
  25. Gittens RA, Scheideler L, Rupp F, et al. A review on the wettability of dental implant surfaces II: Biological and clinical aspects. Acta Biomater. 2014;10(7):2907–2918.
  26. Wilson CJ, Clegg RE, Leavesley DI, Pearcy MJ. Mediation of biomaterial-cell interactions by adsorbed proteins: A review. Tissue Eng. 2005;11(1–2):1–18.
  27. Terheyden H, Lang NP, Bierbaum S, Stadlinger B. Osseointegration – communication of cells. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(10):1127–1135.
  28. Smeets R, Stadlinger B, Schwarz F, et al. Impact of dental implant surface modifications on osseointegration. Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:6285620.
  29. Eriksson C, Nygren H, Ohlson K. Implantation of hydrophilic and hydrophobic titanium discs in rat tibia: Cellular reactions on the surfaces during the first 3 weeks in bone. Biomaterials. 2004;25(19):4759–4766.
  30. Zhao G, Schwartz Z, Wieland M, et al. High surface energy enhances cell response to titanium substrate microstructure. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2005;74(1):49–58.
  31. Le Gac O, Grunder U. Six-year survival and early failure rate of 2918 implants with hydrophobic and hydrophilic enossal surfaces. Dent J. (Basel). 2015;3(1):15–23.
  32. Rupp F, Scheideler L, Eichler M, Geis-Gerstorfer J. Wetting behavior of dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011;26(6):1256–1266.
  33. Palmquist A, Engqvist H, Lausmaa J, Thomsen P. Commercially available dental implants: Review of their surface characteristics. J Biomater Tissue Eng. 2012;2(2):112–124.