implants - internationalmagazine of oral implantology

I clinical study _ extraction plus technique Tab. 2_The only difference in survey 2 that the first premolar in Case A2, and, the second premolar in Case B2, both are considered as doubtful teeth. Fig. 10_Shows the master cast lateral view with the synOcta selected abutment in parallelism. Fig. 11_Shows the master cast occlusal view of the metal framework. Fig. 12_Shows the radiograph taken to assess the marginal adaptation of the metal framework left side. Fig. 13_Shows the radiograph taken to assess the marginal adaptation of the framework right side. Fig. 14_shows the final restoration in seated left side. Respondents The study respondents were clinicians involved in the implantology field (dentists and oral and maxillo- facial surgeons). The data was collected from May 2008 to May 2009 from 77 respondents, self-cate- gorisedintothreegroups:beginners,intermedialsand experts. We obtained 19 respondents from Brazil, Chile,Colombia,LatinAmericaandPeruduringtheIn- ternational Implantology Conference of Dentoflex heldinSãoPaulo,Brazil,from14to16November2008. Ninerespondents,obtainedthroughcolleagueswork- ing in Dubai and Sweden, came from Sweden. Ten re- spondents were obtained through another colleague working in Oslo, Norway, and who visits Dubai regu- larly.Theremaining39respondentsweremaster’sstu- dents in and professors of the MSc International Pro- gramme in Oral Surgery and Implantology at Danube University Krems, Austria, and came from Australia, Germany, and Eastern European and Middle Eastern countries. _Results of surveys Ofthe77respondents,nineconsideredthemselves beginners, 50 intermedials and 18 experts. The statis- ticsofthedatacollectedfromthesurveysforcasesA1, B1, A2 and B2 are shown in Tables 3 to 4. _Discussion FromtheresultsthatweobtainedforcaseA1-1,we found that 18% of the respondents agreed by (+++) and30%agreedby(++),whichindicatesthattheex- tractionplustechniqueistheirfirstchoiceofalterna- tive treatment. If we consider them together, this means that 48% would use the extraction plus tech- nique in order to avoid the complications of other al- ternatives,but40%disagreewithextractinganintact tooth. For case A2-1, 58% of the respondents agreed by (+++) and 18% agreed by (++), which totals 76%, and only 16% disagreed. ForcaseB1-1(maxillacase),10%agreedby(+++) and 18% (++), but 49% disagreed with this alterna- tive. In case B2-1, however, 45% agreed by (+++), 26% by (++) and only 20% disagreed, which means that clinicians strongly preferred the extraction plus technique as a good alternative in the posterior zone, where there is an unhealthy tooth but not in the case of a sound and healthy one. Regarding the alternative treatment using short implantsinthemandible,forcaseA1-2,58%ofthere- spondents agreed by (+++), 21% agreed by (++) and only9%disagreedwiththischoice,whichreflectsthat the clinicians strongly preferred the short implant al- ternative to the other difficult and complicated alter- natives and would not use the extraction plus tech- nique. But for case A2-2, 22% agreed by (+++) and 22% would not use this technique, which reflects cli- nicians’hesitationtousetheshortimplantalternative in the case of an unhealthy tooth. 22 I implants4_2011 Fig. 12 Fig. 13 Fig. 14 Fig. 10 Fig. 11 Table II