Noga Harel1, Zeev Ormianer2, Efrat Zecharia3, Avi Meirowitz4. 1. Instructor, Department of Oral Rehabilitation, the Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. Electronic address: noga.hrl@gmail.com. 2. Senior Lecturer, Department of Oral Rehabilitation, the Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. 3. Doctoral student, Department of Oral Rehabilitation, the Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. 4. Chief Technician, the Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Fabricating fixed restorations on implants requires that dentists stay up-to-date with the scientific publications. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A questionnaire containing 29 questions was sent to dentists, members of the Israeli Society of Prosthodontics, and university faculty members. Differences were evaluated using the chi-square and Fisher exact tests and Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon tests for questions enquiring into the frequency of use of certain methods (α=.05). RESULTS: A total of 155 questionnaires were completed by 84 general dental practitioners and 71 specialists and residents. Statistical differences (P<.05) were found in the course of the fabrication of the implant-supported prostheses in the diagnostic waxing, trial restoration, and impression-making processes. Trial restorations were often used by residents and specialists before starting an esthetic restoration. Diagnostic waxing was used when treating patients with complex esthetic needs, mainly by prosthodontists (P=.019). A custom tray for impression making was used more by residents and specialists than by general dental practitioners (P<.001). The open tray technique for impression making of single or up to 3 implants was performed mainly by residents, specialists, and general dental practitioners with professional experience of fewer than 15 years. General dental practitioners used primarily plastic or metal trays for impression making. CONCLUSIONS: Significantly, impression techniques and the use of custom open trays, diagnostic waxing, and trial restorations were performed by residents, specialists, and dentists with fewer than 15 years of experience.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Fabricating fixed restorations on implants requires that dentists stay up-to-date with the scientific publications. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A questionnaire containing 29 questions was sent to dentists, members of the Israeli Society of Prosthodontics, and university faculty members. Differences were evaluated using the chi-square and Fisher exact tests and Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon tests for questions enquiring into the frequency of use of certain methods (α=.05). RESULTS: A total of 155 questionnaires were completed by 84 general dental practitioners and 71 specialists and residents. Statistical differences (P<.05) were found in the course of the fabrication of the implant-supported prostheses in the diagnostic waxing, trial restoration, and impression-making processes. Trial restorations were often used by residents and specialists before starting an esthetic restoration. Diagnostic waxing was used when treating patients with complex esthetic needs, mainly by prosthodontists (P=.019). A custom tray for impression making was used more by residents and specialists than by general dental practitioners (P<.001). The open tray technique for impression making of single or up to 3 implants was performed mainly by residents, specialists, and general dental practitioners with professional experience of fewer than 15 years. General dental practitioners used primarily plastic or metal trays for impression making. CONCLUSIONS: Significantly, impression techniques and the use of custom open trays, diagnostic waxing, and trial restorations were performed by residents, specialists, and dentists with fewer than 15 years of experience.