Topic: Basic research

1
Topic Basic research
Oral implant placement and restoration by
undergraduate students clinical outcomes
student perceptions.
132
Temmerman, A.1,4, Meeus, M.1, Dhondt, R.1,
Wierinck, E.2, Naert, I.3 Quirynen, M.1 1 KU
Leuven, Department of Oral Health Sciences,
Section of Periodontology. 2 KU Leuven,
Department of Oral Health Sciences, Pre-Clinical
Training Centre. 3 KU Leuven, Department of Oral
Health Sciences, Section of Restorative
Dentistry. 4 Private Practice for Periodontology
Implant Dentistry, ParoPlus, Aalst.
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.
Background and Aim
As oral implant dentistry, nowadays, has become
part of mainstream dentistry, universities are
developing and starting to implement an academic,
evidence-based implant dentistry education at all
levels in order to prepare dental professionals
to fulfill the growing treatment needs. This
study describes how oral implant dentistry is
educated at the KU Leuven and focusses on the
implant related clinical outcomes. Furthermore,
the perspectives of the participating
undergraduate students are analyzed, for possible
improvement of the oral implant dentistry
education.
Methods and Materials
Clinical oral implant dentistry training at the
KU Leuven starts in the 5th semester of a 5-year
dental curriculum and contains theoretical
lectures, pre-clinical hands-on workshops and
clinical (surgical/prosthetic) experience.
Students who were able to find a suitable patient
could enter the surgical/prosthetic program.
Questionnaires were used to investigate the
perceptions of the undergraduate students towards
the educational program. Intra-oral, long-cone
radiographs were taken at implant insertion, at
healing abutment connection, at
restoration/prosthesis insertion and after 1 and
2 years of functional loading. The marginal bone
level was measured from the implant-abutment
connection to the first visible bone-to-implant
contact (BIC) mesial and distal. Intra-oral,
long-cone radiographs were taken at implant
insertion, at healing abutment connection, at
restoration/prosthesis insertion and after 1 and
2 years of functional loading.
Figure 1 Practical hands-on workshop the
overdenture in the lower jaw on 4 implants.
Figure 2 Practical hands-on workshop 3 unit
bridge on multi-unit abutments.
Conclusions
Results
The results show that the clinical outcome of
implant treatment performed by undergraduate
students in the clinical implant program is
similar to that reported by experienced
clinicians/research teams. Clinical, surgical as
well as restorative, experience in addition to
theoretical and preclinical education seems
beneficial when implementing implant dentistry as
a part of the curriculum in the programs of
dental schools. Students were mostly satisfied by
the way clinical oral implant dentistry is
organized. Therefore, further development of
clinical implant education in undergraduate
programs is mandatory to overcome shortcomings.
One hundred and twelve implants were placed by
undergraduate students in 56 patients. Two
implants failed to integrate in 1 patient. 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, at
implant level, was 97.4. Implants were placed
in average 0.55mm subcrestally. The mean marginal
bone loss after 1 and 2 years in function was
0.35mm and 0.39mm respectively.

Presented at the 23rd Annual Scientific Meeting
of the European Association for
Osseointegration 25-27 September 2014, Rome, Italy