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

• Main Authors: Abdullah Al Farraj Al Dosari, Syed Rashid Habib, Talal Alnassar, Abdulmonem Alshihri, Ranan Kamalan
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier 2018-10-01
• Series: Saudi Dental Journal
• Online Access: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1013905218301214

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. Keywords: Dental implants, Implant prosthesis, Prosthetic complications, Dental technician