Objective

To explore how bruxism is dealt with by accredited oral implantologists within daily clinical practice.

Materials and methods

Nine semi-structured interviews of oral implantologists practicing in non-academic clinical practices in the Netherlands were performed, and thematic analysis was conducted using a framework-based approach.

Results

Oral implant treatments in bruxing patients were a generally well-accepted practice. Complications were often expected, with most being of minor impact. Contradictive attitudes emerged on the topic of bruxism being an etiologic factor for peri-implant bone loss and loss of osseointegration. Views on the ideal treatment plan varied, though the importance of the superstructure’s occlusion and articulation features was repeatedly pointed at. Similarly, views on protective splints varied, regarding their necessity and material choice. Bruxism was diagnosed mainly by clinical examination, alongside with patient anamnesis and clinician’s intuition. There was little attention for awake bruxism.

Discussion

Bruxism was generally not considered a contraindication for implantological treatments by accredited oral implantologists. Views on the interaction between bruxism and bone loss/loss of osseointegration varied, as did views on the ideal treatment plan.

Conclusions

There is a need for better understanding of the extent to which, and under which circumstances, sleep and/or awake bruxism can be seen as causal factors for the occurrence of oral implant complications.

中文翻译：

---

荷兰日常口腔种植实践中磨牙症的经验：一项定性研究

客观的

探索经认可的口腔种植专家在日常临床实践中如何处理磨牙症。

材料和方法

对在荷兰从事非学术临床实践的口腔种植医师进行了九次半结构化访谈，并使用基于框架的方法进行了主题分析。

结果

磨牙患者的口腔种植治疗是一种普遍接受的做法。并发症通常是意料之中的，但大多数影响不大。关于磨牙症是种植体周围骨丢失和骨整合丧失的病因学因素，出现了矛盾的态度。尽管反复指出上层建筑的咬合和关节特征的重要性，但对理想治疗计划的看法各不相同。同样，关于保护性夹板的必要性和材料选择，人们对保护性夹板的看法也各不相同。磨牙症的诊断主要通过临床检查，以及患者的病史和临​​床医生的直觉。清醒的磨牙症很少受到关注。

讨论

磨牙症通常不被认可的口腔种植学家认为是种植治疗的禁忌症。关于磨牙症与骨丢失/骨整合丧失之间相互作用的观点各不相同，对理想治疗计划的看法也是如此。

结论

需要更好地了解睡眠和/或清醒磨牙症在何种程度上以及在何种情况下可被视为口腔种植并发症发生的原因。