Clinician preferences for complete-arch fixed implant-supported prostheses: A survey of the membership of the Pacific Coast Society for Prosthodontics

Statement of problem: Current in vivo and in vitro research has difficulty keeping pace with the rapid evolution of materials, protocols, and designs of the complete-arch fixed implant-supported prosthesis. Purpose: The purpose of this survey was to determine the current prevalence of usage of various treatment modalities and materials for complete-arch fixed implant-supported prostheses. Material and methods: From November to December of 2018, a survey invitation was sent out to members of the Pacific Coast Society for Prosthodontics (PCSP). The survey was hosted online, and asked a series of 18 questions related to the materials, protocols, and design preferences for complete-arch fixed implant-supported prostheses. The prompt included the suggestion that answers should be based on preferences for ideal treatment of a hypothetical completely edentulous patient seeking fixed, implant-supported prostheses, assuming sufficient native bone and an opposing complete-arch fixed implant-supported prosthesis. Results: Of 133 invitations sent via email, 45 (34%) surveys were started and 48 (36%) were completed. Pertinent results are summarized in histograms with color coding in each answer group to indicate the total number of arches the person had treated (a proxy for experience). Most respondents were in private practice (73%) and had completed more than 21 arches of fixed implant-supported prostheses (62%). Nearly half (49%) of the respondents preferred 6 implants in the maxilla, while the preferred number in the mandible was highly varied between 4 (33%), 5 (27%), and 6 (29%) implants. Three-fourths (75%) preferred bone-level implant designs, and the plurality was ambivalent on the use of a platform-switched design (48%). Two-thirds (67%) preferred to deliver a complete-arch fixed provisional prosthesis at the time of surgery. Two-thirds (67%) preferred to make the definitive impression by using rigidly splinted, open-tray copings. While most (67%) preferred to fabricate the definitive maxillary and mandibular prostheses with identical occlusal materials, the specifics of material selection between arches varied greatly. In the maxilla, a plurality preferred anatomic contour zirconia with titanium bases (33%). In the mandible, a plurality preferred laboratory-processed resin with denture teeth over a milled metal bar (32%). Conclusions: While a wide range of protocols, designs, and materials exist in the use of the complete-arch fixed implant-supported prosthesis, these results provide a snapshot of current clinical preferences in the Western United States.