Common practices of dental implant maintenance among dental hygienists working in the Netherlands – A survey

Abstract Background Dental implant maintenance is crucial to obtain and maintain a healthy peri‐implant situation. Although it is part of a dental hygienists (DH) scope of practice, the knowledge and common practices among DHs in the Netherlands are unclear. Materials and Methods A web‐based survey was distributed by the Dutch Association of DHs, by spreading survey QR codes and snowballing. The role of the different DH curricula 2‐ or 3‐year diploma and a 4‐year bachelor's degree is evaluated. Results In total, 165 (diploma: 73, bachelor: 92) DHs responded. Peri‐implant diseases were well known (98%), indices and clinical symptoms were used to assess peri‐implant tissues. A periodontal probe (97%) was used and bone loss was evaluated on radiographs (89%). Treatment was performed supra‐ and subgingivally (69%), mostly by titanium (45%) or plastic hand instruments (42%). Ultrasonic (52%) and air‐abrasive (52%) devices were often used. The recall interval for maintenance was based on a risk‐adjusted protocol (70%). DHs with a bachelor's received significantly more training compared to DHs with a diploma during primary education ( p < 0.001). Diploma DHs mainly obtained their knowledge from continuing education ( p = 0.04). In general, there was no significant difference in knowledge or common practices. Conclusions The primary education of DHs with a 2‐ or 3‐year diploma and a 4‐year bachelor's varies. Due to the continuing education of diploma DHs, knowledge and common practices generally do not differ. Most DHs in the Netherlands perform implant maintenance. A periodontal probe and radiographs are used for examination. Instrumentation is performed supra‐ and subgingivally, usually with titanium or plastic hand instruments. The recall interval is based on a patient's risk assessment.