Current status of implant prosthetics in Japan: a survey among certified dental lab technicians

Abstract

BackgroundThere are many implant cases in which dental technicians take initiative with regard to the design of implant prostheses, and to a certain extent, this area of care is one in which dentists do not necessarily play the leading role. Moreover, inadequate communication between dental technicians and dentists and insufficient instructions for technicians has been highlighted as issues in the past. The purpose of this questionnaire is to improve the quality of implant prostheses and thereby contribute to patient service by clarifying, among other aspects of treatment, problem areas and considerations in the fabrication of implant prostheses, conceptual-level knowledge, and awareness of prosthodontics on the part of the dentists in charge of treatment and methods for preventing prosthetic complications.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was given to 120 certified dental technicians. To facilitate coverage of a broad range of topics, we classified the survey content into the following four categories and included detailed questions for (1) the conditions under which implant technicians work, (2) implant fixed prostheses, (3) implant overdentures, and (4) prosthetic complications.ResultsOut of 120 surveys sent, 74 technicians responded resulting in a response rate of 61.6%.ConclusionsThis survey served to clarify the current state of implant prosthodontics, issues, and considerations in the fabrication of implant prostheses, and the state of prosthetic complications and preventive initiatives, all from a laboratory perspective. The results of this survey suggested that, to fabricate prostheses with a high level of predictability, functional utility, and aesthetic satisfaction, it is necessary to reaffirm the importance for dentists to increase their prosthetic knowledge and work together with dental technicians to develop comprehensive treatment plans, implement an organized approach to prosthesis design, and accomplish occlusal reconstruction.

Clinical versus Dental Laboratory Survey Regarding Modern Fixed Implant Supported Prosthetic in Romania

“…This result is similar with Al Saleh's study [15] but opposite to Chowdhary's study [10] where the cement-retained prosthesis was the favorite restoration of most of the dentists across the countries surveyed. Furthermore, the percent obtained for the lab Romanian professionals is different from the Japanese study [13] where 61.4% of the technicians declare a higher demand for cement-retained restorations.…”

“…The situation is quite different from the study from Saudi Arabia, wherein 49% of the cases the dentist is managing the treatment plan [14]. In Hagiwara 's study from 2015 [13] 39.3% assign the doctor as a leader, whereas 28.9% of the respondents' report that there is a doctortechnician teamwork. However, due to the fact that dental technicians have claimed in this study also that in 14.5% of the cases they step forward, some problems concerning the doctor's training in implant restoration treatment planning arise.…”

“…Communication deficiencies in this relationship are reported as a major problem that interferes with ensuring optimal treatment for the patient [7]. There are just a few studies that identify prosthodontics specialists' preferred methods of implant supported restoration in certain areas of the world [8,9], some of them not providing information regarding professional experience [10,11]; only a few polls have been made in the area of the dental technique laboratory [12,13].…”

Cobalt-chromium alloys in fixed prosthodontics in Sweden

“…Hagiwara et al. sent questionnaires to 120 out of 285 certified dental laboratories in Japan and identified that PFM was the most commonly reported material used for FIP in the anterior and posterior region, 43% and 31%, respectively, followed by Zirconia 27% and 14%, respectively [ 37 ]. These results must be interpreted with caution because of the high exclusion rate in that study, which could affect the outcome as well as the earlier mentioned difficulty with inadequate material information.…”

Comparison of Article Processing Fees on Open Access Journals with a 4.5-Year History of Publishing

“…First issue had authors from Germany, Japan, USA, Sweden, India, and Netherlands. [20][21][22][23][24][25] The articles are published every month, and they are published as they are prepared (Table 7). The most robust year in development was 2017 when 50 articles have been published (Table 1).…”