Magister Chirurgiae Dentium - MChD / Aim: To determine the prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and the association between systemic and local risk factors

No description available.

As doenças perimplantares (DPi) vêm sendo consideradas umas das maiores causas de perdas tardias de implantes dentários e nenhum dos tratamentos já propostos na literatura mostrou ser eficiente a ponto de se tornar a primeira escolha terapêutica. Considerando que a definição correta do tratamento depende invariavelmente do entendimento da etiopatogenia, ocorrências e diagnóstico das DPi, o objetivo da presente tese foi abordar as DPi através de uma ampla revisão dos seus conceitos e da apresentação de dados clínicos preliminares de três meses de um ensaio clínico controlado randomizado comparando os resultados dos tratamentos cirúrgico (C) e não cirúrgico (NC) da perimplantite. Foram incluídos implantes apresentando um ou mais sítios com profundidade de sondagem perimplantar (PSi) ≥ 5mm, com presença de sangramento submucoso (SSi) e/ou supuração e apresentando perda óssea radiográfica (PO) ≥ 3mm. O tratamento não cirúrgico incluiu debridamento mecânico com curetas de teflon e irrigação com solução salina, assim como o tratamento cirúrgico, com acesso por retalho mucoperiostal. Não foram utilizadas técnicas ressectivas e nem implantoplastia. A amostra foi randomizada de maneira estratificada para o hábito de fumar e a presente análise, de 3 meses de acompanhamento após o tratamento, se refere à amostra de 22 indivíduos (29 implantes), sendo 12 (17 implantes) no grupo C e 10 (12 implantes) no NC. No início do estudo não foram observadas diferenças significativas entre os grupos para variáveis demográficas e clínicas, exceto nas condições periodontais de índice de placa visível (IPV) (NC 22,3±14,08 / C 40,2±19,9) e sangramento a sondagem (NC 15,9±10,2 / C 31,8±15,9). Após três meses de tratamento, não houve desistências e, considerando o pior sítio do implante, os dois tratamentos reduziram significativamente as medidas de PSi (NC 5,8±0,27 para 4,3±0,55mm / C 5,9±0,29 para 5,0±0,28mm), os dois grupos apresentaram redução de SSi mas apenas no grupo C foi significativa, diminuindo de 100% para 53%. Não houve diferenças entre os níveis de perda de inserção clínica (PIi). Em uma análise multivariada para identificar os preditores de sucesso dos tratamentos, implantes com PSi basal > 6 mm apresentaram piores reduções de PSi, SSi e PIi, o histórico de periodontite dificultou a redução de PSi enquanto indivíduos com 5 ou mais implantes e reabilitados com próteses cimentadas apresentaram piores reduções de SSi. A taxa de sucesso dos tratamentos foi de 33% no grupo NC e 17% para o grupo C sem diferenças estatísticas. Conclui-se que ambos os tratamentos diminuíram sinais inflamatórios embora sem a demonstração de diferenças entre eles, e que preditores de risco ao sucesso do tratamento devem ser investigados. / Peri-implant diseases (PiD) have been considered the major causes of late loss of dental implants, and none of the proposed treatments in the literature demonstrated to be efficient to become the first therapeutic choice. Considering that the correct definition of treatment depends invariably on the understanding of the etiopathogenesis, occurrence and diagnosis of PiD, the aim of the present theses was to approach PiD through a 9oné99ono f its concepts and presenting preliminary clinical data of 3 months from a randomized controlled 9oné9 comparing surgical (ST) and non-surgical (NST) treatments of peri-implantitis. Implants presenting pocket depth (PD) ≥5mm and bleeding on probing (Bosshardt et al.) with radiographic bone loss ≥3 mm were included in the study. NST included mechanical debridement of the implant with Teflon curets and irrigation with saline solution, whereas ST included the debridement with mucoperiostal flap. Ressective surgery and implantoplasty were not applied. The sample was randomized by stratification according to smoking habit, and the present 3-months analysis after treatment referes to 22 individuals (29 implants), 12 (17 implants) in ST and 10 (12 implants) in the NST group. At basliene, no significant differences were observed between groups for demographic and clinical variables, except for periodontal conditions of teeth in regards to visible plaque (NST 22.3±14.08% and ST 40.2±19.9%) and BOP (NST 15.9±10.2% and ST 31.8±15.9%). After 3 months, there were no drop-outs and, considering the worst site of each implant, the two treatments reduced significantly mean PD (NST 5.8±0.27mm to 4.3±0.55mm and ST 5.9±0.29mm to 5.0±0.28mm. Both groups presented reduction in BOP, but only in the ST the reduction was significant, decreasing from 100% to 53%. There were no significant differences in clinical attachment loss after 3 months in the two groups. In a multivariable analysis to identify predictors of treatment success, implants with baseline PD >6mm presented lower reduction in PD over 3 months, as well as BOP and CAL. Previous history of periodontitis lead to higher PD and individuals with more then 5 implants and rehabilitated with bonded prosthesis had higher BOP over time. It can be concluded that both treatments reduced signs of inflammation although without significant differences between them, and baseline PD, number of implants, history of periodontitis and type of prosthetic fixation may be used as predictors of clinical outcomes of peri-implantitis treatment.

The process of osseointegration described by Brånemark (Brånemark et al 1969, 1977) and Schroeder (Schroeder et al 1981) plays an integral role in dental rehabilitation. Since the first observation 40 years ago, osseointegrated titanium implants have been used predictably in the dental rehabilitation of fully edentulous patients. The application of dental implants has evolved, and from the 1980s dental implants have been used increasingly in the treatment of partially edentulous patients, with equal or better long-term success (Buser et al 1990, 1997, Lekholm et al 1994, Behneke et al 2000, Bornstein et al 2005). The surgical procedures for the placement of endosseous dental implants are based on the original work by Brånemark and colleagues approximately 40 years ago. The two-stage surgical procedure was originally advocated to obtain an optimal process of new bone formation and remodelling after implant placement (Brånemark et al 1977). Osseointegration and good long-term success was also found to be achievable with non-submerged implants (Buser et al 1990, 1992, 1997, Ericsson et al 1997) with the added advantage of avoiding a second surgical procedure (Buser et al 1999). Implant dentistry has evolved over the last 15 years and has benefited from significant progress made in associated treatment protocols and the development of bone augmentation procedures (guided bone regeneration (GBR) and sinus floor elevation) allowing for correction of alveolar bone deficiencies. Additionally, improved osteophilic microtextured implant surfaces have been developed to accelerate healing, significantly reducing treatment time. Research and clinical focus in dental implantology in the last two decades has primarily concentrated on the bone-to-implant interface of osseointegrated implants. The soft tissue profile and seal around implants have been investigated to a much lesser degree. This interest has been largely due to the fact that a successfully osseointegrated implant depends on anchorage in bone and requires a direct bone-to-implant interface to provide long-term support for a prosthesis. Both bone and soft tissue integration onto dental implants are wound healing processes whereby several stages of tissue formation and degradation are involved (Berglundh et al 2003, Abrahamsson et al 2004). Osseointegration is the result of the modelling and remodelling of bone tissue that occurs after implant placement whilst the wound healing that occurs following the closure of mucoperiosteal flaps during implant surgery results in the establishment of a mucosal attachment (transmucosal attachment) to the implant. The establishment of the mucosal barrier around the implant is characterised by the gradual shift from a coagulum to granulation tissue followed by the formation of a barrier epithelium and the maturation of the connective tissue (Berglundh et al 2007). Like natural teeth, osseointegrated implants are transmucosal “masticatory devices” that penetrate the oral mucosa with the periodontal and peri-implant tissues expected to perform a protective function (Weber & Cochran 1998). Background: Peri-implant tissues form a crucial but fragile seal between the oral environment, the bone and the implant surface. Enhancing the seal formed by the peri-implant soft tissues at the titanium/connective tissue interface may be an important factor in implant survival. Additionally, enhancing soft tissue adherence to the implant surface when implants are placed in dehiscence type defects may mean that simultaneous osseous grafting procedures will not always be required. Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of implant surface modification with either platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF) or enamel matrix derivative (EMD) on the connective tissue attachment to moderately roughened titanium implants. Material and Methods: 18 moderately roughened titanium implants were subcutaneously implanted into 14 rats. 6 implants each were coated with PDGF and EMD immediately prior to implantation and 6 implants were left uncoated. The implants were retrieved with a sample of surrounding tissue at 4 and 8 weeks. The specimens were resin-embedded and sections viewed under confocal microscopy for collagen autofluorescence and prepared for qualitative and histomorphometric analysis under light microscopy. ANOVA and t-tests were used to compare the thickness of fibroblast encapsulation on the implant surface and the depth of connective tissue penetration onto the implant grooves. Results: Qualitative analysis under confocal and light microscopy showed encapsulation of all implants by fibroblasts and good soft tissue integration at the end of 4 and 8 weeks. Coating of the implants with growth factors did not alter the orientation of fibroblasts and collagen fibres. Histomorphometric analysis demonstrated that the depth of connective tissue penetration into the implant grooves was significantly greater for the implants coated with PDGF at 4 weeks (ANOVA, P value 0.0014). The thickness of the fibroblast encapsulation on the implant surface was significantly less for the implants coated with PDGF at 8 weeks (ANOVA, P value 0.0012). Conclusion: Good soft tissue integration can be achieved on a moderately roughened titanium implant surface. Coating the implant surface with rhPDGF-BB could increase the speed of soft tissue healing around an implant surface but this increased rate of healing with rhPDGF-BB coating could also result in a less robust titanium/connective tissue interface. / Thesis (D.Clin.Dent.) -- University of Adelaide, School of Dentistry, 2010

As doenças perimplantares (DPi) vêm sendo consideradas umas das maiores causas de perdas tardias de implantes dentários e nenhum dos tratamentos já propostos na literatura mostrou ser eficiente a ponto de se tornar a primeira escolha terapêutica. Considerando que a definição correta do tratamento depende invariavelmente do entendimento da etiopatogenia, ocorrências e diagnóstico das DPi, o objetivo da presente tese foi abordar as DPi através de uma ampla revisão dos seus conceitos e da apresentação de dados clínicos preliminares de três meses de um ensaio clínico controlado randomizado comparando os resultados dos tratamentos cirúrgico (C) e não cirúrgico (NC) da perimplantite. Foram incluídos implantes apresentando um ou mais sítios com profundidade de sondagem perimplantar (PSi) ≥ 5mm, com presença de sangramento submucoso (SSi) e/ou supuração e apresentando perda óssea radiográfica (PO) ≥ 3mm. O tratamento não cirúrgico incluiu debridamento mecânico com curetas de teflon e irrigação com solução salina, assim como o tratamento cirúrgico, com acesso por retalho mucoperiostal. Não foram utilizadas técnicas ressectivas e nem implantoplastia. A amostra foi randomizada de maneira estratificada para o hábito de fumar e a presente análise, de 3 meses de acompanhamento após o tratamento, se refere à amostra de 22 indivíduos (29 implantes), sendo 12 (17 implantes) no grupo C e 10 (12 implantes) no NC. No início do estudo não foram observadas diferenças significativas entre os grupos para variáveis demográficas e clínicas, exceto nas condições periodontais de índice de placa visível (IPV) (NC 22,3±14,08 / C 40,2±19,9) e sangramento a sondagem (NC 15,9±10,2 / C 31,8±15,9). Após três meses de tratamento, não houve desistências e, considerando o pior sítio do implante, os dois tratamentos reduziram significativamente as medidas de PSi (NC 5,8±0,27 para 4,3±0,55mm / C 5,9±0,29 para 5,0±0,28mm), os dois grupos apresentaram redução de SSi mas apenas no grupo C foi significativa, diminuindo de 100% para 53%. Não houve diferenças entre os níveis de perda de inserção clínica (PIi). Em uma análise multivariada para identificar os preditores de sucesso dos tratamentos, implantes com PSi basal > 6 mm apresentaram piores reduções de PSi, SSi e PIi, o histórico de periodontite dificultou a redução de PSi enquanto indivíduos com 5 ou mais implantes e reabilitados com próteses cimentadas apresentaram piores reduções de SSi. A taxa de sucesso dos tratamentos foi de 33% no grupo NC e 17% para o grupo C sem diferenças estatísticas. Conclui-se que ambos os tratamentos diminuíram sinais inflamatórios embora sem a demonstração de diferenças entre eles, e que preditores de risco ao sucesso do tratamento devem ser investigados. / Peri-implant diseases (PiD) have been considered the major causes of late loss of dental implants, and none of the proposed treatments in the literature demonstrated to be efficient to become the first therapeutic choice. Considering that the correct definition of treatment depends invariably on the understanding of the etiopathogenesis, occurrence and diagnosis of PiD, the aim of the present theses was to approach PiD through a 9oné99ono f its concepts and presenting preliminary clinical data of 3 months from a randomized controlled 9oné9 comparing surgical (ST) and non-surgical (NST) treatments of peri-implantitis. Implants presenting pocket depth (PD) ≥5mm and bleeding on probing (Bosshardt et al.) with radiographic bone loss ≥3 mm were included in the study. NST included mechanical debridement of the implant with Teflon curets and irrigation with saline solution, whereas ST included the debridement with mucoperiostal flap. Ressective surgery and implantoplasty were not applied. The sample was randomized by stratification according to smoking habit, and the present 3-months analysis after treatment referes to 22 individuals (29 implants), 12 (17 implants) in ST and 10 (12 implants) in the NST group. At basliene, no significant differences were observed between groups for demographic and clinical variables, except for periodontal conditions of teeth in regards to visible plaque (NST 22.3±14.08% and ST 40.2±19.9%) and BOP (NST 15.9±10.2% and ST 31.8±15.9%). After 3 months, there were no drop-outs and, considering the worst site of each implant, the two treatments reduced significantly mean PD (NST 5.8±0.27mm to 4.3±0.55mm and ST 5.9±0.29mm to 5.0±0.28mm. Both groups presented reduction in BOP, but only in the ST the reduction was significant, decreasing from 100% to 53%. There were no significant differences in clinical attachment loss after 3 months in the two groups. In a multivariable analysis to identify predictors of treatment success, implants with baseline PD >6mm presented lower reduction in PD over 3 months, as well as BOP and CAL. Previous history of periodontitis lead to higher PD and individuals with more then 5 implants and rehabilitated with bonded prosthesis had higher BOP over time. It can be concluded that both treatments reduced signs of inflammation although without significant differences between them, and baseline PD, number of implants, history of periodontitis and type of prosthetic fixation may be used as predictors of clinical outcomes of peri-implantitis treatment.

As doenças perimplantares (DPi) vêm sendo consideradas umas das maiores causas de perdas tardias de implantes dentários e nenhum dos tratamentos já propostos na literatura mostrou ser eficiente a ponto de se tornar a primeira escolha terapêutica. Considerando que a definição correta do tratamento depende invariavelmente do entendimento da etiopatogenia, ocorrências e diagnóstico das DPi, o objetivo da presente tese foi abordar as DPi através de uma ampla revisão dos seus conceitos e da apresentação de dados clínicos preliminares de três meses de um ensaio clínico controlado randomizado comparando os resultados dos tratamentos cirúrgico (C) e não cirúrgico (NC) da perimplantite. Foram incluídos implantes apresentando um ou mais sítios com profundidade de sondagem perimplantar (PSi) ≥ 5mm, com presença de sangramento submucoso (SSi) e/ou supuração e apresentando perda óssea radiográfica (PO) ≥ 3mm. O tratamento não cirúrgico incluiu debridamento mecânico com curetas de teflon e irrigação com solução salina, assim como o tratamento cirúrgico, com acesso por retalho mucoperiostal. Não foram utilizadas técnicas ressectivas e nem implantoplastia. A amostra foi randomizada de maneira estratificada para o hábito de fumar e a presente análise, de 3 meses de acompanhamento após o tratamento, se refere à amostra de 22 indivíduos (29 implantes), sendo 12 (17 implantes) no grupo C e 10 (12 implantes) no NC. No início do estudo não foram observadas diferenças significativas entre os grupos para variáveis demográficas e clínicas, exceto nas condições periodontais de índice de placa visível (IPV) (NC 22,3±14,08 / C 40,2±19,9) e sangramento a sondagem (NC 15,9±10,2 / C 31,8±15,9). Após três meses de tratamento, não houve desistências e, considerando o pior sítio do implante, os dois tratamentos reduziram significativamente as medidas de PSi (NC 5,8±0,27 para 4,3±0,55mm / C 5,9±0,29 para 5,0±0,28mm), os dois grupos apresentaram redução de SSi mas apenas no grupo C foi significativa, diminuindo de 100% para 53%. Não houve diferenças entre os níveis de perda de inserção clínica (PIi). Em uma análise multivariada para identificar os preditores de sucesso dos tratamentos, implantes com PSi basal > 6 mm apresentaram piores reduções de PSi, SSi e PIi, o histórico de periodontite dificultou a redução de PSi enquanto indivíduos com 5 ou mais implantes e reabilitados com próteses cimentadas apresentaram piores reduções de SSi. A taxa de sucesso dos tratamentos foi de 33% no grupo NC e 17% para o grupo C sem diferenças estatísticas. Conclui-se que ambos os tratamentos diminuíram sinais inflamatórios embora sem a demonstração de diferenças entre eles, e que preditores de risco ao sucesso do tratamento devem ser investigados. / Peri-implant diseases (PiD) have been considered the major causes of late loss of dental implants, and none of the proposed treatments in the literature demonstrated to be efficient to become the first therapeutic choice. Considering that the correct definition of treatment depends invariably on the understanding of the etiopathogenesis, occurrence and diagnosis of PiD, the aim of the present theses was to approach PiD through a 9oné99ono f its concepts and presenting preliminary clinical data of 3 months from a randomized controlled 9oné9 comparing surgical (ST) and non-surgical (NST) treatments of peri-implantitis. Implants presenting pocket depth (PD) ≥5mm and bleeding on probing (Bosshardt et al.) with radiographic bone loss ≥3 mm were included in the study. NST included mechanical debridement of the implant with Teflon curets and irrigation with saline solution, whereas ST included the debridement with mucoperiostal flap. Ressective surgery and implantoplasty were not applied. The sample was randomized by stratification according to smoking habit, and the present 3-months analysis after treatment referes to 22 individuals (29 implants), 12 (17 implants) in ST and 10 (12 implants) in the NST group. At basliene, no significant differences were observed between groups for demographic and clinical variables, except for periodontal conditions of teeth in regards to visible plaque (NST 22.3±14.08% and ST 40.2±19.9%) and BOP (NST 15.9±10.2% and ST 31.8±15.9%). After 3 months, there were no drop-outs and, considering the worst site of each implant, the two treatments reduced significantly mean PD (NST 5.8±0.27mm to 4.3±0.55mm and ST 5.9±0.29mm to 5.0±0.28mm. Both groups presented reduction in BOP, but only in the ST the reduction was significant, decreasing from 100% to 53%. There were no significant differences in clinical attachment loss after 3 months in the two groups. In a multivariable analysis to identify predictors of treatment success, implants with baseline PD >6mm presented lower reduction in PD over 3 months, as well as BOP and CAL. Previous history of periodontitis lead to higher PD and individuals with more then 5 implants and rehabilitated with bonded prosthesis had higher BOP over time. It can be concluded that both treatments reduced signs of inflammation although without significant differences between them, and baseline PD, number of implants, history of periodontitis and type of prosthetic fixation may be used as predictors of clinical outcomes of peri-implantitis treatment.

No description available.

Aim: To investigate retrospectively the outcome of surgical peri-implantitis treatment taking potentially relevant parameters into account. Material and method: Patients being treated for peri-implantitis during 2013-2019 by a single specialist with sufficient radiographic and clinical documentation and at least a nine-month follow-up were considered herein. Patient-, prosthodontic-, and implant-related data were collected from the journals and available radiographs at baseline and follow-ups. Surgical procedures were divided into open flap debridement (OFD), resective, regenerative and combined treatments. Treatment outcome was defined as: good (PPD≤5mm+no BoP); acceptable (PPD>5mm without BoP or BoP+PPD≤5mm); bad (PPD>5mm+BoP and/or suppuration); and failure (explantation or re-operation). Descriptive statistics, chi-square or Fisher’s exact test were performed to assess potential predictors for the combined outcomes good and acceptable, coined as “successful”, and bad and failure, coined as “unsuccessful”. Results: Thirty-seven patients and 69 implants with a follow-up of 9 to 63 months fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Overall, 71% of the treated implants showed a good outcome and 13% an acceptable outcome, i.e., in 84% of the cases a successful outcome was achieved. Regenerative treatment had the highest success rate (87%) followed by resective (84%), OFD (83%) and combined treatment (83%). One of the predictors (i.e., smoking) affected the successful outcome negatively with >10%. However, statistical analysis failed to prove significance. Conclusion: Based on this retrospective analysis of a relatively limited number of implants, surgical treatment of peri-implantitis was successful in 84% of the cases. For defining risk factors affecting the treatment outcome a larger sample size is required. The results were of no statical significance. / Syfte: Retrospektivt undersöka resultatet av kirurgisk peri-implantitbehandling med hänsyn till potentiellt relevanta parametrar. Material och metod: Alla patienter som kirurgiskt behandlades för peri-implantit under tidsperioden 2013-2019 av en enda specialist med minst nio månaders uppföljning beaktades här. Patient-, protes- och implantatrelaterade data samlades in retrospektivt från journaler och tillgängliga röntgenbilder pre- och postoperativt. Kirurgiska ingrepp delades in i open flap debridement (OFD), resektiv, regenerativ och kombinerad behandling. Behandlingsresultatet definierades som: good (PPD≤5mm+ingen BoP); acceptable (PPD>5mm utan BoP, eller BoP+PPD≤5mm); bad (PPD>5mm+BoP och/eller suppuration); och failure (explantering eller re-operation). Beskrivande statistik, chi-square eller Fisher’s exact test utfördes för att bedöma potentiella prediktorers påverkan på resultatet. För ”lyckat” kombinerades resultaten good och acceptable, medan för ”misslyckat” kombinerades resultaten bad och failure. Resultat: Trettiosju patienter och 69 implantat med en uppföljning på 9 till 63 månader uppfyllde inklusionskriterierna. Sammantaget visade 71% av de behandlade implantaten ett bra resultat och ytterligare 13% ett acceptabelt resultat, dvs. i 84% av fallen uppnåddes ett lyckat resultat. Regenerativ behandling hade den bästa lyckandefrekvensen (87%) följt av resektiv (84%), OFD (83%) och kombinerad behandling (83%). En av prediktorerna, mer specifikt rökning, påverkade lyckandefrekvensen negativt med >10%. Statistisk analys misslyckades dock med att bevisa statistisk signifikans. Slutsats: Baserat på denna retrospektiva analys av ett relativt begränsat antal implantat lyckades kirurgisk behandling av peri-implantit i 84% av fallen. För att definiera riskfaktorer som påverkar behandlingsresultatet krävs en större provstorlek. Resultaten visade ingen statistisk signifikans.

No description available.

SyfteSyftet med studien var att undersöka vilken kunskap sistaårs tandläkarstudenter och sista-termins tandhygieniststudenter vid Odontologiska Fakulteten, Malmö Högskola har gällande diagnos, behandling och prognos av periimplantära sjukdomar.Material och MetodEn pappersenkät sammanställdes och delades ut till sistaårs tandläkar- och tandhygieniststudenter vid Odontologiska Fakulteten, Malmö Högskola.I enkäten inkluderades bakgrundsfrågor gällande erfarenhet av implantatinstallation samt implantatprotetik, kunskap om hur vävnaderna kring ett implantat undersöks, diagnostiska kriterier för periimplantär sjukdom, och prognos. Enkäten inkluderade även fyra unika fall.Resultat97 av 119 enkäter delades ut, 83 av 97 enkäter returnerades. Studien visade att studenterna i hög grad föreslår korrekt diagnos, behandlingsplan, och prognos. Resultaten visar även osäkerhet vid självutvärdering av den ställda prognosen.SlutsatsStudenterna angav i hög grad korrekt behandling, men att de träffar få patienter med periimplantär sjukdom under utbildningen. Studenterna är osäkra vilket resulterar i variationer mellan studenter gällande diagnos, behandling, och prognosbedömning vid periimplantär sjukdom.Majoriteten av studenterna föreslog att det är patientens nuvarande tandläkare som är ansvarig för uppföljning/utvärdering av implantatet. Detta är det mest lämpliga förslaget tack vare regelbundna kontroller till samma tandläkare (nuvarande).Då implantat används mer frekvent som ersättning för förlorade tänder finns ett behov av mer utbildning och färdighetsträning inom området vid Odontologiska Fakulteten, Malmö Högskola. / AimThe aim of this study is to examine the knowledge of last-year dental students and last semester dental hygienist students at the Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University regarding diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of peri-implant diseases. Material and MethodA paper case based survey study was conducted and handed out among last-year dental and dental hygienist students at the Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University.The survey included background questions regarding experience of implant installation and implant prosthetics, and knowledge about how an examination is conducted, diagnostic criteria for peri-implant diseases, and prognosis. The survey also included four unique cases.Results97 of 119 surveys were handed out, 83 of 97 surveys were returned. The study showed that students to a high degree suggests a correct diagnosis, treatment plan and prognosis. The results also shows insecurities when self-evaluating the prognosis.ConclusionThe students planned the correct treatment, to a high degree, but they encounter few patients with peri-implant diseases during their education. The students are insecure, resulting in inter-student disagreement regarding diagnosis, treatment and assessment of prognosis of peri-implant diseases.The majority suggested the patients current dentist as responsible for follow-ups/evaluation, which also is the most appropriate suggestion because of regular check-ups to the same (current) dentist.Because implants are used more frequently as a replacement for lost teeth there is a need for more education and training in this area at the Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University.