Does professional experience save teeth? A survey among prosthodontists

Determinants of Clinical Decision Making under Uncertainty in Dentistry: A Scoping Review

Clinical decision-making for diagnosing and treating oral and dental diseases consolidates multiple sources of complex information, yet individual clinical judgements are often made intuitively on limited heuristics to simplify decision making, which may lead to errors harmful to patients. This study aimed at systematically evaluating dental practitioners’ clinical decision-making processes during diagnosis and treatment planning under uncertainty. A scoping review was chosen as the optimal study design due to the heterogeneity and complexity of the topic. Key terms and a search strategy were defined, and the articles published in the repository of the National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE/PubMed) were searched, selected, and analysed in accordance with PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Of the 478 studies returned, 64 relevant articles were included in the qualitative synthesis. Studies that were included were based in 27 countries, with the majority from the UK and USA. Articles were dated from 1991 to 2022, with all being observational studies except four, which were experimental studies. Six major recurring themes were identified: clinical factors, clinical experience, patient preferences and perceptions, heuristics and biases, artificial intelligence and informatics, and existing guidelines. These results suggest that inconsistency in treatment recommendations is a real possibility and despite great advancements in dental science, evidence-based practice is but one of a multitude of complex determinants driving clinical decision making in dentistry. In conclusion, clinical decisions, particularly those made individually by a dental practitioner, are potentially prone to sub-optimal treatment and poorer patient outcomes.

Pre-implantological treatment routines for alveolar ridge atrophy - an investigation among maxillofacial and oral surgeons in southern Germany

Background

It is not well-known which pre-implantological procedures are preferred by maxillofacial (MFS) and oral surgeons (OS) for the narrow atrophic alveolar ridge under practice based conditions and, if different training paths in surgery lead to other pre-implantological techniques being preferred. This study aims to identify which procedures are preferred by the respective specialists in which indication.

Methods

A questionnaire was sent to a total of 300 MFS and OS in southern Germany. The questionnaire examined pre-implantological procedures (bone block, bone grafting material and/or particulate autogenous bone, titanium mesh, bone split, resection) in the edentulous severely atrophic mandible and in the severely atrophic single-tooth gap. Kendall’s Tau-b test was used for statistical analyses.

Results

One hundred seventeen participants returned the questionnaire. 68 (58%) were OS and 49 (42%) were MFS. In the edentulous mandible, bone substitute material and resection were most preferred by both specialists. Bone blocks were statistically significantly more frequently associated with MFS and bone substitute materials with OS. Bone split was more frequently used in the atrophic single tooth gap than in the edentulous mandible. OS preferred bone blocks in the single tooth gap more often than in the edentulous mandible. MFS and OS preferred resection in the edentulous mandible significantly more frequently than in the single tooth gap.

Conclusions

MFS in general prefer more invasive pre-implantological therapies with the same initial diagnosis than OS, which seems to be attributed to different training paths.

Attitude and treatment options in implant-supported prosthetics: A survey among a cohort of German dentists

PURPOSE

The aim of the current study was to analyze treatment concepts of a cohort of German dentists for planning, fabrication, and maintenance of implant-supported fixed and removable restorations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A questionnaire including queries about experiences with implant-supported restorations as well as prosthetic and maintenance treatment concepts for supplying patients with fixed and removable implant-supported prosthetic restorations was developed and sent to 350 dental offices registered in the municipal area of Leipzig, Germany.

RESULTS

An overall total of 62 returned questionnaires were included in the analyses, which relates to a response rate of 17.7%. Participating dentists were more involved in the prosthetic aspects of implant dentistry rather than surgery, while prosthetic concepts such as backward planning, digital processing, and application of all-ceramic materials were not commonly performed. Simple attachments were preferred over complex retention systems in removable implant-supported restorations. Tooth/implant-supported fixed denture prostheses as well as removable denture prostheses with supporting posterior implants were not regarded as a favorable treatment option.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of the study, the data indicate that dentists favor simple and conventional treatment approaches in implant prosthetics. Prosthetic aspects in the planning of implant-supported restorations are often neglected. Prosthetic treatment guidelines and aspects should commonly be considered in the planning phase of implant-supported prosthetic restorations, and awareness should be increased in postgraduate education.