-
All Events
IAO-EAO-SIdP joint meeting 2024EAO-DGI joint meeting 202329th Annual Scientific CongressEAO Digital Days 2021EAO Digital Days 202028th Annual Scientific Congress27th Annual Scientific Congress26th Annual Scientific Congress25th Annual Scientific Congress24th Annual Scientific Congress23rd Annual Scientific Congress -
All Content TypesAbstractArticle ReviewePosterLearning moduleLearning QuizMatching SlidePDF DocumentWebcast
-
Sort ByRelevance
Background:
Dental implants have become established as a part of mainstream dentistry. At the Catholic University of Leuven an educational grant by Nobel Biocare (Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden) made it possible for senior year undergraduate students, to take the theoretical knowledge concerning oral implant therapy to the clinical field.
Aim/Hypothesis:
The aim of this study is (1) to give an overview on how oral implantology is educated at the Catholic University of Leuven, (2) to retrospectively analyze the implants placed and restored by undergraduate students, (3) and by means of a questionnaire, the opinion and vision of the student on the undergraduate implant dentistry education was analyzed and (4) the postgraduation education (1 year follow-up) was analyzed.
Material and Methods:
Systematically an overview is given on oral implantology education at the Catholic University of Leuven. Intra-oral, long-cone radiographs were taken at implant insertion, at abutment connection, at initial functional loading and after 1 and 2 years of functional loading. The analysis of peri-implant bone level alterations was performed by 2 calibrated, independent periodontologists . Results were re-evaluated when there was 1mm inter-examiner difference. Measurements were made to the nearest 0.1mm using the software tool. Every undergraduate student who had the chance to place an oral implant in the undergraduate program, was asked to fill out a questionnaire after the surgery. All questionnaires were collected immediately after the surgery and analyzed afterwards. One year after graduation, every student who had the chance to place and restore an implant was contacted via e-mail to gain insight in their clinical activities with oral implants.
Results:
After 3 years, in total 112 implants were placed in 56 patients (36.5% female, 63.5% male) with a mean age of 56.8 years (range: 30-83y)). Four patients were lost during follow-up (1 diseased, 3 were not willing to pay an extra visit to the clinic). 2 implants failed to integrate in 1 patient (this patient lost 2 implants due to peri-apical implant lesions, which could not be treated in any way). 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 was 97.4% on an implant level. Implants were placed in average 0;55mm subcrestally (range [-2.52mm; 1.84mm]. The mean marginal bone level alterations after 1 year in function was 0.35mm compared to baseline (SD: 0.54; range [-0;66mm; 1.73mm]). After 2 years in function the mean marginal bone level alterations were 0;39mm compared to baseline (SD: 0.59; range [-0.57mm; 1.88mm]. 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. 60% of the students would go for an extra course in implantology after graduation, and 26% will not place implants themselves in their own practice.
Conclusions and clinical implications:
The results indicate that the clinical outcome of implant treatments performed by undergraduate students in the undergraduate implant program at the Catholic University of Leuven is similar to that reported by experienced clinicians/research teams. Undergraduate students were satisfied by the way oral implantology is being lectured and how hands-on training is used in a pre-clinical stage. We furthermore can conclude that after graduation the amount of these students who follows an extra implantology course is scarce. The results also suggest that implant dentistry should be implemented as part of the curriculum in the undergraduate programs of dental schools.
Background:
Dental implants have become established as a part of mainstream dentistry. At the Catholic University of Leuven an educational grant by Nobel Biocare (Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden) made it possible for senior year undergraduate students, to take the theoretical knowledge concerning oral implant therapy to the clinical field.
Aim/Hypothesis:
The aim of this study is (1) to give an overview on how oral implantology is educated at the Catholic University of Leuven, (2) to retrospectively analyze the implants placed and restored by undergraduate students, (3) and by means of a questionnaire, the opinion and vision of the student on the undergraduate implant dentistry education was analyzed and (4) the postgraduation education (1 year follow-up) was analyzed.
Material and Methods:
Systematically an overview is given on oral implantology education at the Catholic University of Leuven. Intra-oral, long-cone radiographs were taken at implant insertion, at abutment connection, at initial functional loading and after 1 and 2 years of functional loading. The analysis of peri-implant bone level alterations was performed by 2 calibrated, independent periodontologists . Results were re-evaluated when there was 1mm inter-examiner difference. Measurements were made to the nearest 0.1mm using the software tool. Every undergraduate student who had the chance to place an oral implant in the undergraduate program, was asked to fill out a questionnaire after the surgery. All questionnaires were collected immediately after the surgery and analyzed afterwards. One year after graduation, every student who had the chance to place and restore an implant was contacted via e-mail to gain insight in their clinical activities with oral implants.
Results:
After 3 years, in total 112 implants were placed in 56 patients (36.5% female, 63.5% male) with a mean age of 56.8 years (range: 30-83y)). Four patients were lost during follow-up (1 diseased, 3 were not willing to pay an extra visit to the clinic). 2 implants failed to integrate in 1 patient (this patient lost 2 implants due to peri-apical implant lesions, which could not be treated in any way). 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 was 97.4% on an implant level. Implants were placed in average 0;55mm subcrestally (range [-2.52mm; 1.84mm]. The mean marginal bone level alterations after 1 year in function was 0.35mm compared to baseline (SD: 0.54; range [-0;66mm; 1.73mm]). After 2 years in function the mean marginal bone level alterations were 0;39mm compared to baseline (SD: 0.59; range [-0.57mm; 1.88mm]. 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. 60% of the students would go for an extra course in implantology after graduation, and 26% will not place implants themselves in their own practice.
Conclusions and clinical implications:
The results indicate that the clinical outcome of implant treatments performed by undergraduate students in the undergraduate implant program at the Catholic University of Leuven is similar to that reported by experienced clinicians/research teams. Undergraduate students were satisfied by the way oral implantology is being lectured and how hands-on training is used in a pre-clinical stage. We furthermore can conclude that after graduation the amount of these students who follows an extra implantology course is scarce. The results also suggest that implant dentistry should be implemented as part of the curriculum in the undergraduate programs of dental schools.
Background:
Dental implants have become established as a part of mainstream dentistry. At the Catholic University of Leuven an educational grant by Nobel Biocare (Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden) made it possible for senior year undergraduate students, to take the theoretical knowledge concerning oral implant therapy to the clinical field.
Aim/Hypothesis:
The aim of this study is (1) to give an overview on how oral implantology is educated at the Catholic University of Leuven, (2) to retrospectively analyze the implants placed and restored by undergraduate students, (3) and by means of a questionnaire, the opinion and vision of the student on the undergraduate implant dentistry education was analyzed and (4) the postgraduation education (1 year follow-up) was analyzed.
Material and Methods:
Systematically an overview is given on oral implantology education at the Catholic University of Leuven. Intra-oral, long-cone radiographs were taken at implant insertion, at abutment connection, at initial functional loading and after 1 and 2 years of functional loading. The analysis of peri-implant bone level alterations was performed by 2 calibrated, independent periodontologists . Results were re-evaluated when there was 1mm inter-examiner difference. Measurements were made to the nearest 0.1mm using the software tool. Every undergraduate student who had the chance to place an oral implant in the undergraduate program, was asked to fill out a questionnaire after the surgery. All questionnaires were collected immediately after the surgery and analyzed afterwards. One year after graduation, every student who had the chance to place and restore an implant was contacted via e-mail to gain insight in their clinical activities with oral implants.
Results:
After 3 years, in total 112 implants were placed in 56 patients (36.5% female, 63.5% male) with a mean age of 56.8 years (range: 30-83y)). Four patients were lost during follow-up (1 diseased, 3 were not willing to pay an extra visit to the clinic). 2 implants failed to integrate in 1 patient (this patient lost 2 implants due to peri-apical implant lesions, which could not be treated in any way). 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 was 97.4% on an implant level. Implants were placed in average 0;55mm subcrestally (range [-2.52mm; 1.84mm]. The mean marginal bone level alterations after 1 year in function was 0.35mm compared to baseline (SD: 0.54; range [-0;66mm; 1.73mm]). After 2 years in function the mean marginal bone level alterations were 0;39mm compared to baseline (SD: 0.59; range [-0.57mm; 1.88mm]. 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. 60% of the students would go for an extra course in implantology after graduation, and 26% will not place implants themselves in their own practice.
Conclusions and clinical implications:
The results indicate that the clinical outcome of implant treatments performed by undergraduate students in the undergraduate implant program at the Catholic University of Leuven is similar to that reported by experienced clinicians/research teams. Undergraduate students were satisfied by the way oral implantology is being lectured and how hands-on training is used in a pre-clinical stage. We furthermore can conclude that after graduation the amount of these students who follows an extra implantology course is scarce. The results also suggest that implant dentistry should be implemented as part of the curriculum in the undergraduate programs of dental schools.
Background:
Dental implants have become established as a part of mainstream dentistry. At the Catholic University of Leuven an educational grant by Nobel Biocare (Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden) made it possible for senior year undergraduate students, to take the theoretical knowledge concerning oral implant therapy to the clinical field.
Aim/Hypothesis:
The aim of this study is (1) to give an overview on how oral implantology is educated at the Catholic University of Leuven, (2) to retrospectively analyze the implants placed and restored by undergraduate students, (3) and by means of a questionnaire, the opinion and vision of the student on the undergraduate implant dentistry education was analyzed and (4) the postgraduation education (1 year follow-up) was analyzed.
Material and Methods:
Systematically an overview is given on oral implantology education at the Catholic University of Leuven. Intra-oral, long-cone radiographs were taken at implant insertion, at abutment connection, at initial functional loading and after 1 and 2 years of functional loading. The analysis of peri-implant bone level alterations was performed by 2 calibrated, independent periodontologists . Results were re-evaluated when there was 1mm inter-examiner difference. Measurements were made to the nearest 0.1mm using the software tool. Every undergraduate student who had the chance to place an oral implant in the undergraduate program, was asked to fill out a questionnaire after the surgery. All questionnaires were collected immediately after the surgery and analyzed afterwards. One year after graduation, every student who had the chance to place and restore an implant was contacted via e-mail to gain insight in their clinical activities with oral implants.
Results:
After 3 years, in total 112 implants were placed in 56 patients (36.5% female, 63.5% male) with a mean age of 56.8 years (range: 30-83y)). Four patients were lost during follow-up (1 diseased, 3 were not willing to pay an extra visit to the clinic). 2 implants failed to integrate in 1 patient (this patient lost 2 implants due to peri-apical implant lesions, which could not be treated in any way). 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 was 97.4% on an implant level. Implants were placed in average 0;55mm subcrestally (range [-2.52mm; 1.84mm]. The mean marginal bone level alterations after 1 year in function was 0.35mm compared to baseline (SD: 0.54; range [-0;66mm; 1.73mm]). After 2 years in function the mean marginal bone level alterations were 0;39mm compared to baseline (SD: 0.59; range [-0.57mm; 1.88mm]. 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. 60% of the students would go for an extra course in implantology after graduation, and 26% will not place implants themselves in their own practice.
Conclusions and clinical implications:
The results indicate that the clinical outcome of implant treatments performed by undergraduate students in the undergraduate implant program at the Catholic University of Leuven is similar to that reported by experienced clinicians/research teams. Undergraduate students were satisfied by the way oral implantology is being lectured and how hands-on training is used in a pre-clinical stage. We furthermore can conclude that after graduation the amount of these students who follows an extra implantology course is scarce. The results also suggest that implant dentistry should be implemented as part of the curriculum in the undergraduate programs of dental schools.