Aims: In 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.
Objectives: Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the crown-retaining system (cement- or screw-retained) used in dental schools and private dental practices.
Methods: A 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).
Results: Twenty-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. CONCLUSION: The 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.
Keywords: dental crown; dental practice pattern; dental schools; implant‐supported dental prosthesis.
© 2024 The Authors. Journal of Dental Education published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Dental Education Association.