Five best practice sharing categories:
Best practices related to achieving the treatment objectives and meeting patients’ expectations, for example in regards to the diagnostic, treatment planning, and treatment execution.
Best practices related to the treatment time optimization and timing flexibility, for example in regards to availability, facilities, and resources.
Best practices related to the appearance of the restoration, for example in regards to the provisional prosthetic, final restoration, soft-tissue, and facial contours.
Best practices related to delivering value to patients, for example in regards to facilities, accessibility, communication, coordination, and treatment choice.
Best practices related to the long-term performance of the complete implant system, for example in regards to preventive measures, risk mitigation, and quality assurance.
What fosters the best dental implant treatment?
“Best Practice Sharing” aims to identify the best insights on how to provide patient-centered dental implant treatment. These factors help you evaluate the perceived treatment value of patients. In turn, understanding the value of your services enables you then to capitalize on your strengths, address your weaknesses, and ultimately achieve higher patient satisfaction.
Why join Best Practice Sharing?
- Discover insights worth communicating with your patients.
- Identify gaps where you could increase your service value to your patients.
- Raise the standards and help reach a consensus on early indicators of good dental implant treatment.
- Support the continued development of our Patient-Centered Audit, aimed to give you the most practical, impactful, and up-to-date assessment of the dental implant treatment value you provide to your patients.
- Support the creation of the Teeth4All Matching Tool, which will help to match patients with the most suitable implant dentists considering their indications and expectations.
- It’s free and fun!
Why a collaborative international approach for Best Practice Sharing?
There are four challenges that explain the reason why Teeth4all adopts an independent collaborative international approach to define early indicators of dental implant treatment quality standards.
The first challenge is to identify best practices that can help patients (and dentists) to evaluate the quality of the outcome. To be measurable, these indicators must be specific and as factual as possible. For example, instead of talking about a dentist’s skills, a factor can be the (advanced) surgical protocol used on the patient.
The second challenge is to cover a multitude of factors. Treatment quality depends on the surgeon’s skills, the competence of the prosthodontist, the technology and products used, patient screening protocol, patient compliance, team coordination, extended team skills etc. Given the number of screening points, these factors are consolidated into five categories: Service, Predictability, Performance, Aesthetics, and Duration.
The third challenge is that quality is a subjective concept dependant on a patient’s expectations and the dentist’s ability to capture them. To meet a patient’s expectations, both have to agree on a common language to define the expectations related to the treatment outcome. Using Teeth4all’s five categories helps to simplify and get a consensus on the type of outcome to aim for. When patients have unrealistic expectations, for example getting treated in less than 3 months, then the discussion with their dentist should be about understanding the rationale behind and options to shorten the treatment duration.
The fourth challenge is that implant treatment quality standards are not universal. Currently, there is a limited consensus on the golden rules to apply in order to make an implant treatment successful. Some reasons are related to the clustered number of dental associations worldwide and the influence of implant industrials lobbying for their proprietary protocols. Public bodies, like universities, invest increasingly in brand-independent research and adopting the patient’s perspective.
The last challenge is that, as for any service, the true quality of a dental implant treatment can only be evaluated once completed. Identifying early indicators that contribute to ensuring the quality level of the treatment to come requires a multi-disciplinary approach, evidence-based elements, as well as a wide review of the standards by the community.
Thank you. Your input helps to improve the Patient Education Site, increase the robustness of our audit tool, set up a smart patient-dentist matching tool, and reach an international consensus on objective early indicators of the best dental implant treatment quality.
*: These criteria are not replacing any national and/or international clinical standards for implant dentistry (e.g. FGDP, AAID), but actually seek to translate these professional standards into patient-relevant / understandable criteria to select a quality provider.