Multidisciplinary oral rehabilitation in partially edentulous adult patients with malocclusion: A cross-sectional survey study.

Autor:	Devita R; Rua do Ouvidor 183, sala 307, Centro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil., Pinho S; Residencial Jardins do Lago Quadra 09, Rua Bouganville casa 04, Bairro Jardim Botȃnico, Brasilia, Brazil., Ustrell JM; Full Professor, Vice-Dean of Odontology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Barcelona, Group of Oral Health and Masticatory System, Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Bellvitge (IDIBELL), L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain., Pretti H; Full Professor, Director of the Faculty of Dentistry of the Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG). Av. Antonio Carlos 6627, Campus Pampulha, Belo Horizonte, Brazil., França EC; Avenida do Contorno 4480, sala 1104, Funcionàrios, Belo Horizonte, Brazil., Silva E; SHIS Q1 07 Bloco C 104, Lago Sul, Brasilia, Brazil., Brum I; Rua Aurelino Leal 14, Centro, Niterói, RJ, Brazil.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry [J Clin Exp Dent] 2018 Dec 01; Vol. 10 (12), pp. e1177-e1183. Date of Electronic Publication: 2018 Dec 01 (Print Publication: 2018).
DOI:	10.4317/jced.55282
Abstrakt:	Background: A cross-sectional survey was conducted to gather information regarding the opinion of Brazilian specialists in both orthodontics and implantology on multidisciplinary oral rehabilitation in partially edentulous patients with malocclusion. Material and Methods: A total of 305 specialists participated in a telephone survey and answered an ad hoc 10-item questionnaire, including the request of total skull cone-beam tomographies (CBCT) and the use of 3D digital planning software, the best moment of treatment to place dental implants, and the integration of orthodontics in implantology. Results: Most participants did not request CBCT (90.8%) or 3D digital planning software images (92.3%) to diagnose and plan multidisciplinary oral rehabilitation. By contrast, 91.1% of participants would use an already dental implant as anchorage for orthodontics, 73.8% had already used implants for this purpose, 47.9% selected 4 months as the waiting time between implant placement and its use as anchorage, and 58.4% had already placed dental implants having in mind using them as anchorage for orthodontics and anticipating the oral rehabilitation process. Moreover, 93.4% of participants stated to avoid applying orthodontic forces in implants with unfavourable prognosis. A total of 67.9% of participants got the degree of specialist in Orthodontics before that of specialist in Implantology. The main reason for obtaining the other specialty degree was to be able to thoroughly exercise the two specialties. Conclusions: The use of technological advances, such as CBCT and 3D digital planning software was limited. Most dental specialists would wait the osseointegration recommended time before applying orthodontic forces and thus using them as anchorage for orthodontics. The majority of interviewed dentists sought the other specialty to acquire multidisciplinary knowledge. Key words: Cross-sectional study, orthodontics, implantology, partially edentulous, malocclusion, oral rehabilitation. Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement: None to be declared.
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu