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 Oral & Maxillofacial Implants



Forgotten password?


Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 28 (2013), No. 4     23. July 2013
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 28 (2013), No. 4  (23.07.2013)

Page 1017-1025, doi:10.11607/jomi.2855, PubMed:23869360

Survey of Currently Selected Dental Implants and Restorations by Prosthodontists
Cardoso, Richard C. / Gerngross, Peter J. / Dominici, John T. / Kiat-amnuay, Sudarat
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to survey the prosthodontists of the American College of Prosthodontists (ACP) and the American Academy of Maxillofacial Prosthetics (AAMP) to identify the most commonly used implant both during their training and currently in practice, and to evaluate overall restorative preference. Participants were asked to rank criteria that make an implant company desirable and important features when selecting an implant.
Materials and Methods: An electronic survey was emailed to 1,739 members of the ACP and AAMP.
Results: The majority of respondents (79%) were trained using Nobel Biocare brand implants, which was also the brand most often selected by participants for use in all regions of the oral cavity (34% to 39%, location dependent). Abutment preferences varied by area: incisors and canines (29%) and highly esthetic areas (53%) were more likely to be restored with custom milled zirconia abutments, while prefabricated titanium abutments were preferred for premolars and molar areas. Conventional loading was most often applied, ranging from 95% in medically compromised patients to 55% in esthetic areas. The majority of participants (86%) used Locator attachments for complete overdenture restorations. Also, respondents selected an implant company based on features and literature support versus cost and customer service. The implant features deemed most important were the design of the internal connection and ease of finding replacement parts; thread design and variety of abutments were deemed least important. Respondents reported that while implant planning software was used, they rarely/never order the concurrent surgical guide.
Conclusion: Within the study's limitations, the majority of prosthodontists select implants based on training, features, and literature support.

Keywords: implant restoration, implant selection, implant survey, implant systems