Michael Saminsky

Objective The aim of this study was to assess the common practices of dental implant maintenance among dental hygiene professionals (DHP) in Israel (IL) and Germany (GE). Methods An online questionnaire was developed by the Periodontology Departments of Tel Aviv (IL) and Frankfurt University (GE) to address demographics, training, prevention and treatment of peri‐implant diseases. The questionnaire was distributed by DHP associations via social media. Results The responses of 376 DHPs (IL: 169; GE: 207) were analysed. Most participants were female (IL: 168/99%; GE: 203/98%), had received education (IL: 179/97%; GE: 207/97%) and were working in their home countries (IL: 182/99%; GE: 211/99%). Peri‐implant probing was not performed by 22% of DHPs in IL and 5% in GE. Of the DHPs who used probes, 49% used metal probes in IL, while 40% used plastic probes in GE ( p < 0.001). A majority of DHPs performed peri‐implant instrumentation (IL: 168/99%; GE: 190/92%). Most DHPs from IL did not use devices other than hand and/or sonic/ultrasonic instruments for peri‐implant cleaning (IL: 130/77%; GE 5/2%); in GE, the use of airflow (IL: 31/18%; GE: 199/96%) is popular ( p < 0.001). Conclusions Most DHPs in IL and GE perform peri‐implant probing and debridement. However, there are some distinct differences between the two countries regarding the choice of instruments and treatment regimens.