Dentists' Most Common Practices when Selecting an Implant System
Affiliations
Affiliations
- School of Dentistry, Jordan University of Science & Technology, Irbid, Jordan.
- Private Practice, Kuwait, Kuwait.
- Private Practice, Amman, Jordan.
- Faculty of Applied Medical Sciences, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan.
Abstract
Purpose: To report a comprehensive description of dental implant system selection practices among dentists practicing implantology worldwide.
Materials and methods: An online questionnaire was designed and sent to members of 15 dental implant organizations. The survey questions addressed: dental implant system selection criteria, implant design variables, dentists' perspective to implant quality stamps, and dentists' satisfaction with their implant system(s). Responses were compiled and analyzed to determine correlation of responses using the chi-squared test (level of significance α ≤ 0.05).
Results: Out of 4264 invitations sent, a total of 2001 (response rate = 46.9%) dentists participated in the survey. Approximately half of survey respondents (48.7%) were general dentists. More than two-thirds of the survey respondents (72.5%) were performing both the surgical and prosthetic implant phases. Implant-abutment connections were the most important dental implant system selection criterion (84.7%), followed by scientific evidence available on the implant system (82.8%), and simplicity of prosthetic steps (81.4%). Patient preferences (19.8%) were rated as the least important aspect. Sandblasted large gritted acid etched implant surfaces (SLA) were the most commonly used implant surfaces (75.8%); fluoride coated surfaces were the least commonly used (15.4%).
Conclusion: According to the results of this survey, most survey respondents practiced both surgical and prosthetic phases of dental implantology. The majority of survey respondents agreed on the importance of implant-abutment connections, scientific evidence available on implant systems, and simplicity of prosthetic steps when selecting implant systems.
Keywords: Dental implants; implant system selection practices; survey questionnaire.
Similar articles
Interest in dental implantology and preferences for implant therapy: a survey of Victorian dentists.
Cheung MC, Kao P, Lee N, Sivathasan D, Vong CW, Zhu J, Polster A, Darby I.Aust Dent J. 2016 Dec;61(4):455-463. doi: 10.1111/adj.12411.PMID: 26800641
Status report on dental implantology in Switzerland. An updated cross-sectional survey.
Sekerci E, Lambrecht JT, Mukaddam K, Kühl S.Swiss Dent J. 2020 Jun 15;130(6):486-492.PMID: 32512981
Influence of patient characteristics on Finnish dentists' decision-making in implant therapy.
Heinikainen M, Vehkalahti M, Murtomaa H.Implant Dent. 2002;11(3):301-7. doi: 10.1097/00008505-200207000-00017.PMID: 12271570
Schwendicke F, Göstemeyer G.Implement Sci. 2016 Oct 19;11(1):142. doi: 10.1186/s13012-016-0505-4.PMID: 27760551 Free PMC article. Review.
Sato Y, Koyama S, Ohkubo C, Ogura S, Kamijo R, Sato S, Aida J, Izumi Y, Atsumi M, Isobe A, Baba S, Ikumi N, Watanabe F.Int J Implant Dent. 2018 May 8;4(1):14. doi: 10.1186/s40729-018-0125-7.PMID: 29736592 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
Lee JH, Kim YT, Lee JB, Jeong SN.J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2022 Jun;52(3):220-229. doi: 10.5051/jpis.2104080204.PMID: 35775697 Free PMC article.
Lee JH, Kim YT, Lee JB, Jeong SN.Diagnostics (Basel). 2020 Nov 7;10(11):910. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics10110910.PMID: 33171758 Free PMC article.
Kim JE, Nam NE, Shim JS, Jung YH, Cho BH, Hwang JJ.J Clin Med. 2020 Apr 14;9(4):1117. doi: 10.3390/jcm9041117.PMID: 32295304 Free PMC article.
Faraji F, Bayani M, Jafarpour M, Abdolalian F.Clin Case Rep. 2019 Oct 17;7(12):2331-2335. doi: 10.1002/ccr3.2485. eCollection 2019 Dec.PMID: 31893052 Free PMC article.
Dental implant in a multiple myeloma patient undergoing bisphosphonate therapy: A case report.
Bayani M, Anooshirvani AA, Keivan M, Mohammad-Rabei E.Clin Case Rep. 2019 Apr 16;7(5):1043-1048. doi: 10.1002/ccr3.2150. eCollection 2019 May.PMID: 31110742 Free PMC article.