Management of Peri Implantitis by Implant Oriented Clinical Practitioners Across Kalaburagi. A Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Study

Objectives: This survey-based study aims to assess the effectiveness of methods used for determining the peri implant tissue health and also to determine the updated knowledge in the management of peri implant diseases by implant practitioners across Kalaburagi. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among dentists practicing implant dentistry in the Kalaburagi region. Data were collected using a standardized online questionnaire, which was distributed to local practitioners. A total of 120 dentists were approached and informed about the objectives of the study. Of those, 75 dentists (62.5%) were included in the final analysis, as they provided fully completed responses. The initial section of the questionnaire focused on participants’ experience with implant placement, the average number of implants placed annually, and the system of implant most commonly used in their clinical practice. The remaining items addressed protocols for the prevention and management of peri-implantitis. Results: The majority of the 75 practitioners polled had less than five years of implant experience (100%) and placed fewer than ten implants per year (62.7%). The most popular implant systems were German (22.7%) and Israeli (33.3%). 72% of patients were typically recalled every three months, with clinical examination (46.7%) and education (65.3%) being the most important recall processes. The prevalences of periimplantitis and peri-implant mucositis were 84% and 86.7%, respectively. Stage 1 peri-implantitis was most common (77.3%), and diabetes was the most common related disease (86.7%). Peri-implantitis rates were higher in cement-retained prostheses (60%) than in other types. The main methods of assessment were probing depth (88%) and bleeding on probing (92%). The preferred radiographs (62.7%) were IOPAs. The most common forms of treatment were non-surgical debridement (53.3%), antimicrobial rinses (61.3%), and oral hygiene education (72%). The most common surgical procedures were allografts (56%) and regenerative treatment (57.3%). For debridement and implantoplasty, ultrasonic scalers (60%) and diamond burs (50.7%) were the instruments of choice. The ratings ranged from very effective (48%), to moderate (49.3%). Conclusion: Implantology has grown leaps and bound in the past few years, and so have Peri-implantitis. Based on these, it is recommended that practitioners should update themselves with a special focus on educating dentists in diagnosing the complications of implants and treating them.3 months follow up after an implant placement by a consultant periodontist should always be considered for the management of Peri implant tissues in order to prevent Peri implant diseases.