Current status of implant prosthetics in Japan: a survey among certified dental lab technicians

Clinical versus Dental Laboratory Survey Regarding Modern Fixed Implant Supported Prosthetic in Romania

(1) Background: The success of prosthetic treatment with implant support depends on the combined effort of the team doctor-technician, each of them being responsible for the validation of execution stages. (2) Methods: we composed an online questionnaire with 18 multiple choice questions, using the Google Forms application. It was filled out by an equal number of prosthodontic specialists and dental technicians. Differences and associations were evaluated by Likelihood Ratio test, Linear by Linear association test, Kruskal-Wallis H test, Pearson Chi-Square test and the Fisher’s Exact test. (3) Results: Differences and similarities were found between the statements of prosthodontic specialists and dental technicians. Years of experience are correlated with the number of restorations, impression techniques and types of restoration (p ≤ 0.05). Similar answers for both groups were registered for preferred screw retained type of prosthetic abutment and most frequently reported complications. (4) Conclusions: The different perspectives of the two members of the prosthodontic team regarding the leading role in the treatment plan, type of abutment, impression technique and prosthetic design of implant fixed restorations has been revealed in our study. Similar education curricula and standards for continuing training courses after graduation are necessary for prosthodontic specialists and technicians in Romania.

The current considerations in the fabrication of implant prostheses and the state of prosthetic complications: A survey among the dental technicians

PURPOSE

To investigate the current considerations in the fabrication of dental implant prostheses (DIP) and the state of prosthetic complications from the dental technicians (DT) perspective.

METHODS

A self-designed pretested questionnaire and an informed consent were distributed to 150 certified DT working in dental laboratories of Riyadh, KSA. The demographic data, questions related to the implant fixed/removable prostheses and questions on the prosthetic complications related to the DIP were collected. Descriptive statistics and Chi-square test were used for statistical analysis, considering a P-value of <0.05 using SPSS.

RESULTS

130 responses (response rate 83.6%) were received. 53% (n = 69) of the DT received job orders for DIP from >20 dentists. 49% (n = 64) of dentists took the leading role in the treatment planning/designing. 48% (n = 62) and 52% (n = 68) of requests were for Cement and Screw retained DIP respectively. Custom abutments 37% (n = 49) choice of abutments. Porcelain fused to metal (PFM) 34% (n = 44) and PFM with metal occlusal surface 55% (n = 71) were material of choice. 49% (n = 64) designing of implant overdentures were according to the dentist's instructions with Ball and Socket 48% (n = 63) to be the most common attachment. DT regarded poor implant location/orientation 38% (n = 49) and inaccuracies in impression/bite-registration 40% (n = 52) as the obstacles to success. Half 50% (n = 65) of the repairs were for facing damage/chipping of ceramic. Fracture of the denture base/tooth detachment 50% (n = 65) was common with implant over dentures.

CONCLUSIONS

DT played a role and took decisions regarding the DIP. Frequent problems found by DT were poor implant location, discrepancies in impression/bite-registration, facing damage/chipping and damage/fracture of the denture base/prosthetic teeth. The frequency of these complications can be minimized by an increase in the prosthetic knowledge of the dentists and establishing clear protocols for communication between the dentist and the DT.

Cobalt-chromium alloys in fixed prosthodontics in Sweden

Aim: The aim of this study was to compile the usage of Co-Cr alloys in fixed prosthodontics (FP) among dental laboratories in Sweden.

Methods: From March to October 2015, questionnaires were sent to 542 registered dental laboratories in Sweden. The questionnaires were divided in two parts, one for fixed dental-supported prosthodontics (FDP) and one for fixed implant-supported prosthodontics (FIP). Reminders were sent three times.

Results: In total of 542 dental laboratories, 55% answered the questionnaires. Most dental laboratories use Co-Cr in FP, 134 (74%) in FDP and 89(66%) in FIP. The laboratories used Co-Cr alloys of various compositions in the prostheses, 35 for FDP and 30 for FIP. The most commonly used Co-Cr alloys for tooth-supported FDPs were (a) Wirobond^® 280, (b) Cara SLM and (c) Wirobond^® C. For implant-supported frameworks the frequently used alloys were: (a) Cara SLM, (b) Cara Milled and (c) Wirobond^® 280. Except for the difference in composition of these alloys, they were also manufactured with various techniques. In tooth-supported prostheses the dominating technique was the cast technique while newer techniques as laser-sintering and milling were more commonly reported for implant-supported constructions. A fourth technique; the ‘pre-state’ milling was reported in FDP.

Conclusion: More than 30 different Co-Cr alloys were reported as being used in FP. Thus, there is a need for studies exploring the mechanical and physical behavior and the biological response to the most commonly used Co-Cr alloys.