We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Prosthodontics



Forgotten password?


Int J Prosthodont 29 (2016), No. 4     1. July 2016
Int J Prosthodont 29 (2016), No. 4  (01.07.2016)

Page 372-380, doi:10.11607/ijp.4793, PubMed:27479346

Five-Year Retrospective Assay of Implant Treatments and Complications in Private Practice: Restorative Treatment Profiles of Single and Short-Span Implant-Supported Fixed Prostheses
Wang, Jason Hsuan-Yu / Judge, Roy / Bailey, Denise
Purpose: The aim of this study was to describe and analyze the restoration profiles of 5,491 implant-supported single crowns, fixed partial dentures (FPDs), and splinted restorations prescribed between January 2005 and December 2009.
Materials and Methods: Dental clinicians qualified in or before December 2004, registered in Victoria, and placing and/ or restoring implants in private practice were invited to participate in the study. Data was extracted by two trained and calibrated research assistants from dental records. Crosstabulation was carried out in SPSS (IBM) to provide descriptive statistics on clinician profiles, patient demographics, and restoration information.
Results: A total of 34 practitioners participated in the study: 25 general dentists and 9 specialists. Clinicians that graduated between 1970 and 1989 (16 to 40 years of experience) prescribed most of the prostheses (82.0%). Female patients were present in higher numbers across most age and restoration groups. Of the implant-supported prostheses, 5,491 fit the criteria for simple basic restorations and were included in this report. The majority of the prostheses (86.7%) were single-tooth restorations. Metal-ceramic was the material of choice for the majority of the restorations (3,382/5,491). The use of single implant-supported crowns in the anterior mandible was rare. More than 65% of the implant-supported restorations in this study were screw retained directly to the implant. The specialist clinicians in this study largely used the screw-retained method to retain single implant-supported crowns (82.0%). General dentists provided 1,066% more cement-retained single implant-supported crowns compared with other practitioners.
Conclusion: This report showed that during the period of January 2005 to December 2009, private practice clinicians in Victoria, Australia favored porcelain-fused-to-metal material over all-ceramic for implant restorations. Most implant restorations were single crowns. More female patients received implant-supported restorations in the posterior region of the mouth. The clinicians included in this study, particularly the specialists, generally favored a retrievable design in choosing the retention method for the prostheses.