Aims and Objectives: The aim of this study is to assess basic knowledge about dental implants amongst newly graduated dental practitioners at the Ajman and Sharjah Dental schools. Materials and Methods: This study was carried out by a self-designed, close-ended questionnaire which was given to the participants in both Ajman and Sharjah dental schools. The questionnaire consists of three parts (knowledge, attitudes and practice) with respect to implant dentistry, and was filled by 173 dentists. Consequently, the data was analyzed by (SPSS, 22V) to reveal the study results. Results: The study revealed that 81.78% of the participants were aware about the various dental implant systems, the surgical techniques involved in dental implant placement, the distance between two adjacent implants, and the different anatomical structures that should be avoided during implant placement. However, 66.5% of the participants did not display full awareness (proper understanding) of dental implant contraindications. Most dental practitioners were aware of immediate and delayed implant placement and their loading protocols. Despite the difficulty of the dental implant procedure, 89% of the participants were willing to present implants as a treatment option to their patients, 87.9% would incorporate implant treatment into their future practice and the majority of them (98.3%) agreed to replace their missing mandibular 1st molar by a dental implant. The participants believed that the difficulties of the dental implant procedure are related to the skill level of the practitioner, lack of proper instrumentation and materials required for the dental implant procedure, and also related to cost (74.6%,63.6%, 83.8%) respectively. Out of all the dental practitioners who took part in this study, only 27.7% of them have undergone formal training in dental implant placement and only 54.3% were satisfied with the implant education they received at undergraduate level. Therefore, 94.8% of the participants demanded further education and training with respect to dental implant placement. Regarding implant education levels, 66.5% of the dental practitioners stated that implant education and training methods are rendered more beneficial at post-graduate level, whilst only 33.5% stated that implant education and training methods are best at undergraduate level. Conclusion: Study findings revealed that dental practitioners possess a high level of knowledge and education towards dental implants, however the overall results show that participants lack practical experience. Therefore, further progress is needed on all educational levels, in addition to advanced level training of dental implant placement for the purpose of enabling dentists to carry out dental implant procedures with a higher level of confidence.

The objective of this study was to measure the buccolingual and mesiodistal convergence angles of six typodont teeth (# 26, 36, 45, 15, 21, and 13), prepared by preclinical dental students at Ajman University, for porcelain fused to a metal full crown and to compare them with the recommended convergence angle (6.5°). Additionally, we sought to compare the angles recorded for the six sets of teeth and relate the results according to the tooth position and surface and to know which one shows the greater tendency of straying from the normal convergence angle. Materials and methods: The angle of convergence of one hundred ninety-eight typodont teeth preparations was measured both buccolingually and mesiodistally by using a Dino-lite pro digital microscope (AM-413ZT Taiwan) with a Dinocapture (2.0 version 1.5.27.A, AnMo Electronics Corporation). All the results were recorded, and the data were analyzed by means of a one-sample t-test and one-way ANOVA. Results: The mean total convergence angle for this study was 11.29°± 6.66° from both surfaces, which is greater than the recommended value of 6.5° and statistically significant (p<0.000). Only 7.07% of teeth met the ideal convergence angle from both surfaces, and the one-sample test showed a statistically significant difference (p<0.057) from the recommended convergence angle, except for the mesiodistal convergence angle of the lower-right second premolar, which revealed no significant difference. The mean convergence angle for the buccolingual surface was 12.42°± 6.16°, which was higher than that of the mesiodistal surface (10.16°± 7°). One-way ANOVA showed a significant difference between all selected teeth (p<0.000), and a paired samples t-test showed a significant difference within two teeth only, the lower-right second premolar and upper-right canine (p<0.000), in which the mesiodistal measurement showed a lower convergence angle than the buccolingual angle. Conclusions: Preclinical students prepared teeth with a convergence angle higher than the recommended convergence angle. However, all the recorded angles were within the range of previous studies. It was concluded that the recommended convergence angle was difficult to achieve in preclinical practice.