Palavras-chave
Selection criteria
Implant system
Como Citar
Resumo
Objective: Determine the most used selection criteria when choosing a brand of dental implants by specialist dentists.
Material and method: If we identified the parameters for choosing an implant brand, we classified them into technical and market, sorting them into a closed-type questionnaire, valuing it by means of a psychometric scale from 1 to 5, plus an open question. It became a masterpiece for the convenience of twenty-one specialist dentists with less experience among three brands of implants. For the descriptive statistical analysis, Microsoft Excel 2011 version for Mac was used, using measures of central tendency such as Arithmetic and Fashion Media. The technical parameters were classified from 1st to 1st, marketing from 2nd to 2nd and suggested from p1 to p7.
Results: The variability in prosthetic retention pillars, adequate availability of the products offered by the company and the compatibility of the additions between commercial brands, were the most relevant factors considered by specialists at the time of choosing a certain implant system.
Conclusion: The reasons that influence the choice of an implant system are the variety and availability of products along with compatibility between brands.
Referências
2. Misch CE. Dental education: meeting the demands of implant dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc. 1990;121:334-338.
3. van Steenberghe D, Lekholm U, Bolender C et al. The applicability of osseointegrated oral implants in teh rehabilitacion of partial edentulism: a prospective multicenter study on 558 fixtures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Impl. 1990;3:272-281.
4. Kline R, Hoar JE, Beck GH et al. A prospective multicenter clinical investigation of bone quality-based dental implant system. Implant Dent. 2002;11:224-234.
5. Chowdhary R, Chowdhary N. Need of implant dentistry at undergraduate dental curriculum in Indian dental colleges. Indian J Dent Res. 2011;22(3):436-9.
6. Salinas TJ, Block MS, Sadan A. Fixed partial denture or single tooth implant restoration? Statistical considerations for sequencing and treatment. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004; 62 (Suppl 2 ): 2-16.
7. Martínez-González JM., Cano-Sánchez J, Campo-Trapero J, Martínez-González MJS, García-Sabán F. Diseño de los implantes dentales: Estado actual. Avances en Periodoncia 2002;14(3):129-136.
8. Lazzara RJ. Criteria for implant selection: surgical and prosthetic considerations. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent. 1994;6(9):55-62
9. Misch CE, Misch CM. Generic terminology for endosseous implant prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent. 1992, 68:809-812.
10. Drago C, Lazzara RJ. Guidelines for implant abutment selection for partially edentulous patients. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2010;31(1):14-20, 23-4, 26-7; quiz 28, 44.
11. Sehee Lee, Jeongsam Yang, Jeongho Han. Development of a decision making system for selection of dental implant abutments based on the fuzzy cognitive map. Expert Syst Appl J. 2012;39(14-15):11564-11575.
12. Brånemark PI, Berine U, Adell R, Hansson BO, Lindström J, Ohlsson A. Intra-osseus anchorage of dental prostheses. I. Experimental Studies. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg. 1969;3(2):81-100.
13. Brånemark PI, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T. Tissue-Integrated prostheses. Osseointegration in clinical dentistry. Int Dent J. 1985;35(4):259-65.
14. Anusavice, K.J. Phillips Ciencia de los materiales dentales. 11a. edición. Barcelona: Elsevier; 2004. p. 759-772.
15. Wang RR, Fenton A. Titanium for prosthodontic applications: A review of the literature. Quintessence Int. 1996;27:401-408.
16. O’Brien, W. Dental materials and their selection. 4th. ed. University of Michigan. Quintessence: 2008. p.300-313.
17. Misch, C. Contemporary implant dentistry. 3rd. ed. St. Louis: Mosby Elsevier. 2008.
18. Peñarrocha, M. Implantología oral. Barcelona. 1a. Edición. Barcelona: Ars Médica; 2001. p. 3-13.
19. Tufekci E, Brantley WA, Mitchell JC, McGlumphy EA. Microstructures of plasma-sprayed hydroxyapatite-coated Ti-6Al-4V dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997 121;(1):25-31.
20. ISO/TC 106/SC 8. Dental Implants. International Organization of Standardization.
21. Bhatavadekar, N. Clinical decisions and the quality of evidence available for dental implants. J Periodontol. 2009;80(10):1559-61.
22. Rutkowski, J. Blade-Form Dental Implants: FDA Reclassification as a Class II Dental implant device. Journal of Oral Implantology. 2013;39(6):633-634.
23. ADA Council of Scientific Affairs. Dental endosseous implants: an update. J Am Dent Assoc . 1996;127:1238-1239.
24. ADA Council of Scientific Affairs. Dental endosseous implants: an update. J Am Dent Assoc . 2004. Jan; 135 (1):92-97.
25. Braceras I, Ipiñazar E, De Maeztu MA, Alava JI. Risk analysis and implants. Med Eng Phys 2008, 309)1201-1204.
26. Oxford Center for Evidence Based Medicine. Levels of evidence, 2011. (Consultado en Junio 02, 2014). Disponible en: Disponible en: http://www.cebm.net/ .
27. Bhatavadekar N. Assessing the evidence supporting the claims of select dental implant surfaces: A systematic review. Int Dent J 2008;58:363-370.
28. Likert, R. A technique for the measurement of attitude. New York. Woodworth, Editor; 1932.
29. Kim SK, Koak JY, Heo SJ, Taylor TD, Ryoo S, Lee SY. Screw loosening with interchangeable abutments in internally connected implants after cycling loading. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants . 2012;27(1):42-7
CONFLITOS DE INTERESSE
Os autores declaram não haver conflitos de interesse
INTEREST CONFLICTS
The authors declare no conflicts of interest
Os autores são detentores dos direitos autorais mediante uma licença CCBY 4.0.