Journal of Dental Implants
   About JDI | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Instructions | SubscribeLogin 
Users Online: 351  Wide layoutNarrow layoutFull screen layout Home Print this page  Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size


 
 
Table of Contents
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 4  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 33-37

Trends in patients' mindset on dental implants: A survey in Malaysia


1 Department of Prosthodontics, MAHSA University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
2 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, MAHSA University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Date of Web Publication19-Apr-2014

Correspondence Address:
Shivani Kohli
19A-4-4, Bangsar Permai, Jalan Tandok, Bangsar 59100, Kuala lumpur
Malaysia
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0974-6781.130964

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 

Background: Treatment with dental implants has become increasingly important in the range of prosthodontic treatment. Significant improvements in oral rehabilitation particularly in edentulous individuals have been seen. A nationwide survey was made to evaluate public awareness among patients for dental implants, their level of knowledge and attitude toward replacement of missing teeth by dental implants.
Materials and Methods: A survey of 1500 people was conducted through a printed and online questionnaire and completed by willing respondents. The questionnaires were prepared in English and Malay language to enable better understanding and completion.
Results: Of the 1500 people surveyed, 1013 responses were retrieved, of which 772 were aware of dental implant treatment in Malaysia. Among them, 816 respondents were aware that implants can be used for replacement of missing teeth. Most of the respondents stated that dental implants were placed in the gums, followed by jawbone. 46.2% respondents assumed that implants last for a lifetime. 59% of respondents believe that poor oral hygiene was the most common cause of implant failure.
Conclusion: It is important to raise the awareness of dental implant treatment in Malaysia as majority of the patients had inappropriate level of information about dental implants.

Keywords: Awareness, dental implants, Malaysia, survey, treatment


How to cite this article:
Kohli S, Bhatia S, Kaur A, Rathakrishnan T. Trends in patients' mindset on dental implants: A survey in Malaysia. J Dent Implant 2014;4:33-7

How to cite this URL:
Kohli S, Bhatia S, Kaur A, Rathakrishnan T. Trends in patients' mindset on dental implants: A survey in Malaysia. J Dent Implant [serial online] 2014 [cited 2019 Sep 17];4:33-7. Available from: http://www.jdionline.org/text.asp?2014/4/1/33/130964


   Introduction Top


The aim of today's dentistry is to restore the patient to normal function, speech, aesthetics and health. [1],[2],[3],[4],[5] Dental implants were originally used for treatment of edentulous patients and are associated with improved denture retention, stability and functional efficiency. [6],[7] Due to the high success rates and predictability of dental implants, their prevalence in the rehabilitation of partially dentate and edentulous patients is increasing year by year. [8],[9] Advantages of implant-supported restorations includes psychological benefits and tooth structure conservation adjacent to the teeth to be replaced. [10],[11] The overall desire for better oral health-related quality of life has become a reality in prosthetic dentistry. [12],[13],[14]

According to Pommer et al., in Austria, there was, over the course of 5 years, a dramatic escalation in interest of implant treatment. At the time of the second survey (2008), 79% of participants expressed desire for implant treatment in comparison with 56% in the first survey (2003). [15]

The number of dental implants inserted annually worldwide has been estimated to be close to 1 million. However, the level of information available to patients about realistic, evidence-based treatment options with implants is often only fragmentary, and what is disseminated by the media and industry does not always reflect evidence-based data. [16],[17]

For professionals, it is vital to assess patient's level of knowledge with regards to dental implants and whether their perception of dental implants does in fact reflect reality. Thus, alleviating the negative image of implant dentists due to miscommunication and patient discontent. [18],[19]

A nationwide survey from a representative sample of the general Malaysian population is therefore needed to assess public awareness and understanding of oral implants as a treatment option.


   Aims and Objectives Top


  1. To evaluate the awareness among patients for dental implants.
  2. To evaluate the level of knowledge among the populations with regards to dental implants.
  3. Attitude towards replacement of missing teeth by means of dental implants.



   Materials and Methods Top


This questionnaire-based survey was conducted between May and December 2012. All the respondents were informed about the aims and objectives of the study. Those who were not willing to participate were excluded from the study.

Survey was conducted through printed and online self-explanatory questionnaire composing of 6 questions with the intention of evaluating dental implant awareness among the Malaysian populations. It consists of three sections, first section to find out the level of awareness about dental implants, second section consists of questions evaluating the level of information about dental implants and finally third section helps to evaluate acceptance for dental implants. The questionnaire was prepared both in English and Bahasa Malaysia (local language) to enable completion and to improve the respondents' understanding of the questions.

A total of 1500 questionnaires were distributed to various age groups ranging from 20 years and below, 21 to 40 years, 41 to 60 years, 61 to 80 years and 80 years and above. They were also grouped according to educational levels stated in the questionnaire. [Figure 1] depicts the questions that were included in the questionnaire. [18],[20],[21],[22]
Figure 1:

Click here to view



   Results Top


In this study, 1500 questionnaires were distributed, among these only 1013 responded with the response rate of 67.53%. Of the total sample, 409 (40%) were males and 604 (60%) were females. Nearly half of the respondents were in the age group of 21-40 years (53%), 26% were in the age group below 20 years and 16% between 41 and 60 years age group. Educational status of the respondents was also included in the demographic factors. More than half of the respondents were qualified to university and above level. [Table 1.1] depicts the characteristics of all respondents based on their gender, age and education levels.
Table 1.1: Characteristics of all respondents

Click here to view


Level of awareness

Based on the 1013 responses retrieved, 772 (76.2%) respondents have heard of dental implants treatment, while 241 (23.79%) were unaware about it. [Table 1.2] depicts the characteristics of all respondents who have heard of dental implants based on their gender, age and education levels [Figure 1]a-c. Of all the respondents with university and above qualifications, 83.2% had heard of dental implant treatment. The respondents were even categorized according to race to evaluate implant awareness [Table 1.3].
Table 1.2: Characteristics of respondents those who had heard of dental implants

Click here to view
Table 1.3: Characteristics of respondents who had heard of dental implants according to race

Click here to view


Level of knowledge

Among the 1013 respondents, only 816 were aware that implants can be used for replacement of missing teeth whereas 197 were unaware of it [Table 2].

Characteristics of the respondents who were aware of implants as a treatment modality for missing teeth were studied further and the results are shown in [Table 3],[Table 4] and [Table 5]. When respondents were questioned regarding the area of placement of dental implants, most stated gums, followed by jawbone [Table 3]. This directly reflects the most of the respondents were unaware of the treatment modality and it is essential that the dental education system and governing bodies create awareness. Most respondents assumed that implants last for a lifetime [Table 4] and the most common cause of implant failure was due to poor oral hygiene followed by allergies and incompatibilities [Table 5].
Table 2: Do you know implants can be used for the replacement of missing teeth?

Click here to view
Table 3: Placement of dental implants

Click here to view
Table 4: Longevity of dental implants

Click here to view
Table 5: Reason for failure of dental implants

Click here to view


Attitude towards replacement

657 (80.5%) respondents were willing to opt for dental implant treatment if needed whereas 159 (19.5%) were not [Table 6].
Table 6: Would you like to get implant treatment if needed

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


Dental implant treatment has been at the forefront of clinical dental practice for over a decade and a half now. With increasing success rate of implant treatment more patients are opting for dental implants as premier choice for replacement of missing teeth. Rising awareness of an advanced treatment modality in the society paves way for its acceptability. [20]

Conducting surveys for collection of information regarding dental implant is not uncommon and several researches have contributed in this field. This survey was conducted among the Malaysian population, regarding the awareness about implants as a treatment modality and their willingness to undergo this treatment if needed. Among the 1013 respondents, only 772 people (76.2%) had heard of dental implants in Malaysia. 54.5% of those who had heard of dental implants were among the 21-40 year age group. This can be attributed to the increased interest in dental treatment among the younger generation and changing attitudes towards the advancements in dental technology. [18] This is a comparatively lower finding than a study done in a USA population [19] in which 77% of respondents had heard of dental implants.

These results can be compared to studies done in various other countries [Table 7]. Factors such as high educational qualifications coupled with a reasonably higher income and age can influence the findings of this research. The study by Berge et al.,[21] also claimed people of ages 45 and above with a high level of education were well informed about dental implants, which is concurrent with the findings of Indian studies by Satpathy et al.[20] and Chowdhary et al.[18]
Table 7: Awareness of dental implants in various countries

Click here to view


Majority of those who had heard of dental implant treatment in Malaysia were among respondents of up to university level education or higher, with a percentage of 62.3%.

Thus, it is important to promote dental implant treatment, most importantly by means of effective communication between patients and their dentists and other options such as highlighting the usage of dental implants in health-related articles in newspapers or health magazines. Advertisements of dental implants on the national television channels would create a good impact in promoting the awareness of dental implants as a treatment modality nationwide.

816 (81%) of the respondents were aware that implants could be used for the replacement of missing teeth whereas 197 (19%) were not. Among the 81% of people who were aware of dental implants as a treatment modality for missing teeth, only 34.6% stated that dental implants are placed in the jawbone. The majority of them stated that dental implants are placed in the gums (38.5%). Also studied among the 81% of people who were aware of dental implants as a treatment modality, was the longevity of dental implants. 46.2% stated that dental implants last a lifetime, 22.5% stated they last less than 10 years, 21.7% stated they last up to 20 years. 9.6% said that dental implants last less than 5 years. Around 28% of Japanese subjects believed their implants would last forever. [23] This points to a low level of information about dental implants and indicates a need for promoting implant awareness through proper channels as aforementioned, with the strongest and most effective option being a face-to-face communication between dentists and patients as there is a strong bond of trust between them. [9],[23]


   Conclusion Top


Considering the results of our study, it is important to raise the awareness of dental implant treatment in Malaysia. This survey can be further improvised by including a questions to enquire why patients are opting for dental implant, is it for aesthetic purposes, functional or to aid in speech. Malaysian population should be informed and educated about dental implant treatment by means of public awareness campaigns and counseling centers within outpatient wards in dental clinics of colleges and private clinics. This measure will eventually contribute to increased oral health among Malaysian populations.

 
   References Top

1.Bergendal T, Engquist B. Implant-supported overdenture: A longitudinal prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13:253-62.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.Friberg B, Grondahl K, Lekholm U, Branemark PI. Long term follow up of severely atrophic mandibles reconstructed with short Branemark implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2000;2:184-9.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.Van Steenberghe D, Quirynen M, Naert I, Maffei G, Jacobs R. Marginal bone loss around implants retaining hinging mandibular overdentrues, at 4,8 and 12 years follow-up. J Clin Periodontol 2001;28:628-33.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.Zarb GA, Schmitt A. The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants: The Toronto study. Part I: Surgical results. J Prosthet Dent 1990;63:451-7.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.Ekelund JA, Lindquist LW, Carlsson GE, Jemt T. Implant treatment in edentulous mandible: A prospective study on Branemark system implants over more than 20 years. Int J Prosthodont 2002;16:602-8.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.De Bruyn H, Collaert B, Linden U, Bjorn AL. Patient′s option and treatment outcome of fixed rehabilitation on Branemark implants. A 3-years follow-up study in private dental practices. Clin Oral Implants Res 1977;8:265-71.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.Adell R, Eriksson B, Lekholm U, Branemark PI, Jemt T. Long term follow-up study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of totally edentulous jaws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990;5:347-59.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.Pommer B, Zechner W, Watzak G, Ulm C, Watzek G, Tepper G. Progress and trends in patients′ mindset on dental implants. I: Level of information, sources of information and need for patient information. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22:223-9.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.Lindh T, Gunne J, Tillberg A, Molin M. A meta-analysis of implants in partial edentulism. Clin Oral Implants Res 1998;9:80-90.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.Aglietta M, Siciliano VI, Zwahlen M, Bragger U, Pjetursson BE, Lang NP, et al. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant supported fixed dental prostheses with cantilever extensions after an observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20:441-51.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.den Hartog L, Slater JJ, Vissink A, Meijer HJ, Raghoebar GM. Treatment outcome of immediate, early and conventional single-tooth implants in the aesthetic zone: A systematic review to survival, bone level, soft-tissue, aesthetics and patient satisfaction. J Clin Periodontol 2008;35:1073-86.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.Sonoyama W, Kuboki T, Okamoto S, Suzuki H, Arakawa H, Kanyama M, et al. Quality of life assessment in patients with implant-supported and resin-bonded fixed prosthesis for bounded edentulous spaces. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13:359-64.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.Narby B, Bagewitz IC, Soderfeldt B. Factors Explaining desire for dental implant therapy: Analysis of the results from a longitudinal study. Int J Prosthodont 2011;24:437-44.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.Narby B, Kronstrom M, Soderfelt B, Palmqvist S. Changes in attitudes toward desire for implant treatment: A longitudinal study of a middle-aged and older Sweden population. Int J Prosthodont 2008;21:481-5.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.Pommer B, Zechner W, Watzak G, Ulm C, Watzek G, Tepper G. Progress and trends in patients′ mindset on dental implants. II: Implant acceptance, patient-perceived costs and patient satisfaction. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22:106-12.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.Brunski JB. In vivo bone response to biomechanical loading at the bone/dental implant interface. Adv Dent Res 1999;13:99-119.  Back to cited text no. 16
[PUBMED]    
17.Lambrecht JT, Cardone E, Kühl S. Status report on dental implantology in Switzerland in 2006. A cross-sectional survey. Eur J Oral Implantol 2010;3:71-4.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.Chowdhary R, Mankani N, Chandraker NK. Awareness of Dental Implants as a Treatment Choice in Urban Indian Populations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25:305-8.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.Zimmer CM, Zimmer WM, Williams J, Liesener J. Public awareness and acceptance of dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992;7:228-32.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.Satpathy A, Porwal A, Bhattacharya A, Sahu PK. Patient awareness, acceptance and perceived cost of dental implants as a treatment modality for replacement of missing teeth: A Survey in Bhubaneshwar and Cuttack. Int J Public Health Dentistry 2011;2:1-7.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.Berge TI. Public awareness, information source and evaluation of oral implant treatment in Norway. Clin Oral Implants Res 200;11:401-8.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.Ravi Kumar C, Pratap KV, Venkateswararao G. Dental implants as an option in replacing missing teeth: A patient awareness survey in Khamman, Andhra Pradesh. Indian J Dent Sci 2011;3:33.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.Akagawa Y, Rachi Y, Matsumoto T, Tsuru H. Attitudes of removable denture patients towards dental implants. J Prosthet Dent 1988;60:362-4.  Back to cited text no. 23
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1.1], [Table 1.2], [Table 1.3], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5], [Table 6], [Table 7]



 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
   Aims and Objectives
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2384    
    Printed73    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded381    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal