A preliminary report on dental implant condition among dependent elderly based on the survey among Japanese dental practitioners

Yuji Sato; Shigeto Koyama; Chikahiro Ohkubo; Shin Ogura; Ryutaro Kamijo; Soh Sato; Jun Aida; Yuichi Izumi; Mihoko Atsumi; Akio Isobe; Shunsuke Baba; Noriharu Ikumi; Fumihiko Watanabe

doi:10.1186/s40729-018-0125-7

A preliminary report on dental implant condition among dependent elderly based on the survey among Japanese dental practitioners

Int J Implant Dent. 2018 May 8;4(1):14. doi: 10.1186/s40729-018-0125-7.

Authors

Yuji Sato¹, Shigeto Koyama², Chikahiro Ohkubo³, Shin Ogura⁴, Ryutaro Kamijo⁵, Soh Sato⁶, Jun Aida⁷, Yuichi Izumi⁸, Mihoko Atsumi⁹, Akio Isobe¹⁰, Shunsuke Baba¹¹, Noriharu Ikumi¹², Fumihiko Watanabe¹³

Affiliations

¹ Department of Geriatric Dentistry, Showa University School of Dentistry, 2-1-1, Kitasenzoku, Ohta-ku, Tokyo, 145-8515, Japan. sato-@dent.showa-u.ac.jp.
² Maxillofacial Prosthetics Clinic, Tohoku University Hospital, 1-1, Seiryomachi Aoba-ku, Sendai-shi, Miyagi, 980-8574, Japan.
³ Department of Removable Prosthodontics, Tsurumi University School of Dental Medicine, 2-1-3, Tsurumi, Tsurumi-ku, Yokohama-shi, Kanagawa, 230-8501, Japan.
⁴ Division of Oral Implant, The Nippon Dental University Hospital Tokyo, 2-3-16, Fujimi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 102-8158, Japan.
⁵ Department of Biochemistry, Showa University School of Dentistry, 1-5-8, Hatanodai, Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo, 142-8555, Japan.
⁶ Department of Periodontology, The Nippon Dental University School of Life Dentistry at Niigata, 1-8, Hamauracho, Chuo-ku, Niigata-Shi, Niigata, 951-8580, Japan.
⁷ Department of International and Community Oral Health, Tohoku University Graduate School of Dentistry, 4-1, Seiryomachi Aoba-ku, Sendai-shi, Miyagi, 980-8575, Japan.
⁸ Department of Periodontology, Tokyo Medical and Dental University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, 1-5-45, Yushima, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8510, Japan.
⁹ Department of Oral Interdisciplinary Medicine, Kanagawa Dental University Graduate School of Dentistry, 82, Inaokacho, Yokosuka-shi, Kanagawa, 238-8580, Japan.
¹⁰ Department of Geriatric Dentistry, Showa University School of Dentistry, 2-1-1, Kitasenzoku, Ohta-ku, Tokyo, 145-8515, Japan.
¹¹ Department of Oral Implantology, Osaka Dental University, 1-5-17, Otemae, Chuo-ku, Osaka-shi, Osaka, 540-0008, Japan.
¹² Medical Corporation Ishikura Dental Clinic, 457-3, Iizukamachi, Takasaki, Gunma, 370-0069, Japan.
¹³ Department of Crown & Bridge Prosthodontics, The Nippon Dental University School of Life Dentistry at Niigata, 1-8, Hamauracho, Chuo-ku, Niigata-Shi, Niigata, 951-8580, Japan.

Abstract

Background: The objective of this study was to ascertain the situation relevant to implants, the status of oral self-care, the status of aftercare provided by the dentist who placed the implant, and the usage status of the implant card, in homebound or institutionalized older adults who are receiving home-visit dental care due to the inability to visit a dental clinic on their own.

Methods: A survey questionnaire was sent by post mail to 2339 people who are representative members or dental specialists belonging to any of the following three academic societies: Japanese Society of Oral Implantology, Japanese Society of Gerodontology, and Japan Prosthodontic Society. The survey questions asked were about provision/no provision of implant treatment, provision/no provision of home-visit dental care, the situation of patients after implant treatment, the situation of implants in the context of home-visit dental care, and the usage status and recognition of the implant card.

Results: No less than 30% of the dentists had patients who were admitted to the hospital or became homebound after receiving implant treatment at their clinic. Twenty-two percent of the dentists had been consulted about the implants. Dentists who continued to provide post-operative implant care through home-visit dental care accounted for approximately 80%. On the other hand, however, 40% of the dentists did not know the post-implantation status of their implant patients. Of the patients receiving home-visit dental care, approximately 3% had implants (identified mainly by visual inspection). It was found that more than 50% of the dentists offering implant treatment did not use the implant card, and even in cases where it was used, most of the cards were not in the standardized format.

Conclusions: Within the limitation of low response rate to the questionnaire in this preliminary study, we concluded that many of practitioners including specialists indicated the need of universal record of implant for dependent elderly cares.

Keywords: Home-visit dental care; Implant; Implant card; Older adults.

Publication types

Review