Survey of screw‐retained versus cement‐retained implant restorations used in both education and private dental practices

Abstract

AbstractAimsIn the literature, it is still unclear if the decisions for selecting the type of implant crown‐retaining system are based on scientific‐based research or if the Universities’ choices, Implant marketing trends, or finances could have a major influence on the private dentists’ decisions.ObjectivesTherefore, this study aimed to evaluate the crown‐retaining system (cement‐ or screw‐retained) used in dental schools and private dental practices.MethodsA 13‐item questionnaire was sent to Canadian dental schools (n = 10) and dental offices in London (n = 298), Canada. The questionnaire included demographic questions and questions to reveal the dentists’ perspectives on prosthetic implant treatment between the two‐retaining systems. Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics and multinomial logistic regression (p = 0.05).ResultsTwenty‐four private dentists and five dental schools responded to the survey – 62.5% of private practitioners and 60% of universities reported using both systems. A trend was observed in using screw‐retained systems by dentists who graduated 5–10 years ago. Straumann, Astra, and Nobel Biocare were the private practices and dental schools’ preferred implant systems. The use of platform switching for all cases was selected by 54.2% of the private practitioners and 40% of the dental schools. Resin cement was the private practice's preferred cementation method; the dental schools used glass ionomer and zinc phosphate cement. The multinomial logistic regressions showed no statistical difference between the crown‐retaining system chosen and the decision factors. The laboratory technician's recommendations and cost influenced the decision‐making process for private dentists. For the universities, perio‐restorative outcome, implant position, survival rates, institute preferences, and evidence‐based research influenced the crown‐retaining system's decision‐making process. ConclusionThe Canadian dental schools and private practice reported using both screw‐ and cement‐retaining systems. However, there was a difference in the selection criteria as the universities showed a tendency towards a more research‐based approach in their decision, while for the private practices, the technicians’ recommendations and cost played a major role in the decision process. It was noted that the implant systems preconized by the Universities were observed to be used in private practices.