Clinical Factors Guiding Prosthodontic Treatment Decisions Among Dentists in Maharashtra, India: A Cross-Sectional Survey

Authors

  • Harshit Agarwal Department of Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge, Nair Hospital Dental College, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India Author
  • Rahul Kulkarni Department of Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge, Nair Hospital Dental College, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India Author
  • Gauri Phansalkar Department of Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge, Nair Hospital Dental College, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India Author
  • Saurabh Sarode Department of Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge, Nair Hospital Dental College, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India Author
  • Priyanka Chaugule Department of Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge, Nair Hospital Dental College, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India Author
  • Ankush Jadhav Department of Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge, Nair Hospital Dental College, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.48165/ajm.2026.9.02.19

Keywords:

clinical decision-making, dental implants, dental luting cements, dentists, prosthodontics, treatment planning

Abstract

Purpose: To rank factors guiding three prosthodontic decisions among dentists in Maharashtra and examine variation by professional background and practice setting. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional survey included 400 dentists from 11 districts. A 30-item questionnaire assessed glass ionomer versus resin cement, fixed partial denture versus implant, and implant-supported overdenture versus fixed implant-supported prosthesis decisions on a six-point scale. Internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha with bootstrap confidence intervals. Friedman tests with Kendall's W and Holm-adjusted post hoc tests evaluated rankings. Nonparametric tests compared domain scores across groups. Results: Overall internal consistency was good (alpha = 0.881; 95% CI: 0.861-0.897). Marginal seal ranked highest for cement selection (mean 4.43), prognosis and risk of failure for fixed partial denture versus implant decisions (mean 4.51), and retention and stability for complete-arch decisions (mean 4.42). Rankings differed within every domain (all P < 0.001), although Kendall's W indicated modest separation among generally high ratings. Prosthodontic and other specialty respondents scored all domains higher than general dentists, and dentists in hospital-based educational settings scored them higher than private practitioners (all Holm-adjusted P < 0.001). Scores did not differ by gender or correlate with age. Conclusion: Dentists prioritized biological durability, mechanical predictability, and long-term prognosis. Professional training and institutional context were associated with the breadth of factors considered.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Söderfeldt, B., Palmqvist, S., Eriksson, T., Kronström, M., & Carlsson, G. E. (1996). A questionnaire instrument to assess clinical decision-making in prosthodontics among general practitioners. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica, 54(5), 314–319. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016359609003544

Kronström, M., Palmqvist, S., & Söderfeldt, B. (2000). Prosthodontic decision making among general dentists in Sweden. III: The choice between fixed partial dentures and single implants. International Journal of Prosthodontics, 13(1), 34–40.

Ellakany, P., Fouda, S. M., Alghamdi, M., & Aly, N. M. (2022). Factors affecting clinical decision-making among dentists and dental students: A cross-sectional study. International Journal of Prosthodontics, 35(5), 581–587. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.7359

Asa'ad, F. (2019). Shared decision-making (SDM) in dentistry: A concise narrative review. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 25(6), 1088–1093. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13129

Leung, G. K. H., Wong, A. W. Y., Chu, C. H., & Yu, O. Y. (2022). Update on dental luting materials. Dentistry Journal, 10(11), 208. https://doi.org/10.3390/dj10110208

Ghodsi, S., Arzani, S., Shekarian, M., & Aghamohseni, M. M. (2021). Cement selection criteria for full coverage restorations: A comprehensive review of literature. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry, 13(11), e1154–e1161. https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.58671

Scheuber, S., Hicklin, S. P., & Brägger, U. (2012). Implants versus short-span fixed bridges: Survival, complications, patients' benefits. A systematic review on economic aspects. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 23(Suppl. 6), 50–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02543.x

Goodacre, C. J., & Goodacre, B. J. (2017). Fixed vs removable complete arch implant prostheses: A literature review of prosthodontic outcomes. European Journal of Oral Implantology, 10(Suppl. 1), 13–34.

Joda, T., Zarone, F., & Ferrari, M. (2017). The complete digital workflow in fixed prosthodontics: A systematic review. BMC Oral Health, 17(1), 124. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-017-0415-0

von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C., Vandenbroucke, J. P., & STROBE Initiative. (2007). The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. The Lancet, 370(9596), 1453–1457. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61602-X

Eysenbach, G. (2004). Improving the quality of Web surveys: The Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). Journal of Medical Internet Research, 6(3), e34. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6.3.e34

Torres, C. R. G., Ávila, D. M. S., Gonçalves, L. L., Meirelles, L. C. F., Mailart, M. C., Di Nicoló, R., & Borges, A. B. (2021). Glass ionomer versus self-adhesive cement and the clinical performance of zirconia coping/press-on porcelain crowns. Operative Dentistry, 46(4), 362–373. https://doi.org/10.2341/20-229-C

Pyo, S. W., Park, K., Daher, R., Kwon, H. B., Han, J. S., & Lee, J. H. (2023). Comparison of the clinical outcomes of resin-modified glass ionomer and self-adhesive resin cementations for full-coverage zirconia restorations. Journal of Dentistry, 135, 104558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104558

Ellakany, P., Abualsaud, R., Gad, M. M., Atteya, S., El Meligy, O. A., Qutub, O. A., & Mahrous, A. A. (2023). Knowledge of Saudi dental students and interns towards luting cements and their applications in fixed prosthodontics. BMC Oral Health, 23, 337. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03054-3

Pjetursson, B. E., Thoma, D., Jung, R., Zwahlen, M., & Zembic, A. (2012). A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses after a mean observation period of at least 5 years. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 23(Suppl. 6), 22–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02546.x

Spear, F. (2022). Replacement of an existing maxillary anterior fixed dental prosthesis with an implant-supported prosthesis or a new tooth-supported fixed dental prosthesis. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry, 34(1), 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12852

De Bruyn, H., Raes, S., Matthys, C., & Cosyn, J. (2015). The current use of patient-centered/reported outcomes in implant dentistry: A systematic review. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 26(Suppl. 11), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12634

Borges, G. A., Barbin, T., Dini, C., Maia, L. C., Magno, M. B., Barão, V. A. R., & Mesquita, M. F. (2022). Patient-reported outcome measures and clinical assessment of implant-supported overdentures and fixed prostheses in mandibular edentulous patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 127(4), 565–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.11.005

Mumcu, E., Dayan, S. C., Genceli, E., & Geckili, O. (2020). Comparison of four-implant-retained overdentures and implant-supported fixed prostheses using the All-on-4 concept in the maxilla in terms of patient satisfaction, quality of life, and marginal bone loss: A 2-year retrospective study. Quintessence International, 51(5), 388–396. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.a44368

Daudt Polido, W., Aghaloo, T., Emmett, T. W., Taylor, T. D., & Morton, D. (2018). Number of implants placed for complete-arch fixed prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 29(Suppl. 16), 154–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13312

Papaspyridakos, P., Chen, C. J., Chuang, S. K., Weber, H. P., & Gallucci, G. O. (2012). A systematic review of biologic and technical complications with fixed implant rehabilitations for edentulous patients. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, 27(1), 102–110.

Ahlholm, P., Sipilä, K., Vallittu, P., Jakonen, M., & Kotiranta, U. (2018). Digital versus conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics: A review. Journal of Prosthodontics, 27(1), 35–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12527

Afrashtehfar, K. I., Eimar, H., Yassine, R., Abi-Nader, S., & Tamimi, F. (2017). Evidence-based dentistry for planning restorative treatments: Barriers and potential solutions. European Journal of Dental Education, 21(4), e7–e18. https://doi.org/10.1111/eje.12208

Bishti, S., Lautensack, J., Türp, J. C., & Wolfart, S. (2018). Does professional experience save teeth? A survey among prosthodontists. Clinical Oral Investigations, 22(2), 1001–1008. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2180-5

Deshpande, S., Chahande, J., & Rathi, A. (2017). Mobile learning app: A novel method to teach clinical decision making in prosthodontics. Education for Health, 30(1), 31–34. https://doi.org/10.4103/1357-6283.210514

Published

2026-08-24

How to Cite

Clinical Factors Guiding Prosthodontic Treatment Decisions Among Dentists in Maharashtra, India: A Cross-Sectional Survey. (2026). Academia Journal of Medicine, 9(2), 103-111. https://doi.org/10.48165/ajm.2026.9.02.19