Dentist communication with the dental laboratory for prosthodontic treatment using implants.

PURPOSE: A questionnaire was sent to U.S. dental laboratories to evaluate the level of communication between dentists and laboratory technicians and to determine trends in procedures and materials used in fixed and removable implant restorations. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Dental laboratories were randomly chosen from the National Association of Dental Laboratories for each of the 50 states. The questionnaire was mailed to the laboratory directors for 199 dental laboratories. One hundred fourteen dental laboratories returned the survey, yielding a response rate of 57%. Of those laboratories, 37 indicated that they did not participate in the fabrication of fixed implant restorations, yielding a response rate of 39%. Forty-two dental laboratories indicated that they did not participate in the fabrication of implant-retained overdenture prostheses, yielding a response rate of 36%. RESULTS: Results from this survey show inadequate communication by dentists in completing work authorization forms. Custom trays are used more frequently for implant-retained overdenture impressions and stock trays for impressions of fixed implant prostheses. Poly(vinyl siloxane) is the material most commonly used for both fixed and removable implant-supported prostheses. Two implants with stud attachments are used more widely than those with bar attachments for implant-retained overdentures. CONCLUSIONS: Most laboratories working on implant prosthodontic cases report inadequate communication between the laboratory and dentists related to materials and techniques used in fabrication of implant restorations.

Communication between the dental laboratory technician and dentist: work authorization for fixed partial dentures.

PURPOSE: A questionnaire was sent to laboratory technicians to determine the level of communication between dentists and dental laboratories in specific areas of the work authorization forms for the fabrication of fixed partial dentures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A select number of dental laboratories were randomly chosen from the National Association of Dental Laboratories (NADL) for each of the 50 states. The questionnaire was mailed to the laboratory directors for a total of 199 dental laboratories. The survey asked questions pertaining to the following areas of work authorization: legibility and thoroughness of prescriptions, patient information, choice of materials for the prosthesis, design of the prosthesis, and shade description. For each question, the number of responses received was tabulated and converted to a percentage. RESULTS: Of the 199 laboratories surveyed, 114 (57%) responded to the questionnaire. Results from this survey suggest that there is lack of communication between dentists and dental laboratories through work authorization forms regarding choice of metal alloy, type of porcelain to be used, and choice of margin and pontic design for the prosthesis. CONCLUSIONS: Information obtained from the responding laboratories included effectiveness of work authorization forms. There were some similar trends indicated by the large percentage of dental laboratories agreeing on lack of communication by the dentists as reflected by the work authorization forms.

Predoctoral implant education in U.S. dental schools.

PURPOSE: In 2002, a survey of American dental schools was conducted to determine the curricular structure, teaching philosophies, and materials used in predoctoral implant dentistry courses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The questionnaire was mailed to the predoctoral implant dentistry director/chairperson of 54 U.S. dental schools. Of these, 38 schools returned the completed survey resulting in a response rate of 70%. RESULTS: Eighty-four percent of the respondents indicated that an implant dentistry course is part of their school's requirements. Seventy percent indicated that this course is offered by either the Restorative or Prosthodontics Department in the third year of the predoctoral dental curriculum. For 75% of the schools, the duration of the course ranged from 3 to 6 months (mean of 5.5 months), 57% reported offering between 11 and 20 lecture hours (mean of 20.4 hours), and less than half of the schools (41%) have prosthodontists teaching the predoctoral implant dentistry course. In 78% of the schools, a laboratory course is offered in conjunction with the implant course. The majority of the schools (88%) allow predoctoral students to restore implant cases clinically. Seventy-three percent require some of the implant-related laboratory work to be completed by the students and the single-tooth implant restoration is the most popular type of implant restoration for 78% of the schools. CONCLUSIONS: Predoctoral implant dentistry educational programs vary from school to school, yet a large percentage of schools agree on certain topics.