Knowledge and attitude of dentists toward implant retained restorations in Saudi Arabia
Objectives: The aim was to assess the knowledge and attitudes of specialists (SP) and general dental practitioners (GDP) toward cement‑retained restoration (CRR), screw‑retained restoration (SRR) and implant restorations in Saudi Arabia.
Materials and Methods: Self‑designed‑structured questionnaires were distributed between SP and GDP by hand and through E‑mails. Opinion of dentists regarding factors vital in selection of CRR and SRR was enquired. Factors included esthetics, retrievability, retention, passive fit, fracture resistance, tissue health, cost‑effectiveness, fabrication ease, and required expertise. Participants also graded significance of treatment‑planning factors for implant‑retained prosthesis. Analysis of comparative response frequencies and significance grades was done using the Chi‑square and independent t‑test.
Results: Of 552 respondents, 64% were SP and 36% were GDP with overall response rate of 67%. About 75% of SP and 80% of GDP used SRR in <50% and <25% of their implant practice respectively. The opinion of GDP and SP was significantly different with regards to esthetics, fabrication ease, retrievability, retention and cost‑effectiveness between CRR and SRR (P < 0.05). Overall, CRR were considered better in terms of esthetics, passive fit, fabrication ease, required expertise and fracture resistance. However, SRR were regarded as having better retention, retrievability, soft tissue health and cost‑effectiveness. The average significance scores were significantly higher for SP as compared to GDP for six out of nine factors.
Conclusions: Knowledge of SP and GDP for selection of implant‑retained restorations was broadly in line with standard evidence. The clinical use of CRR was greater in comparison to SRR.
Key words: Cement‑retained, implants retained restorations, knowledge, screw‑retained