## 4 Discussion  
Our study lot has an over-average experience in fabricating the fixed prosthetic treatment with implant support. In the attempt to find a correlation between the age of the respondent and the total number of implant-supported prosthetic restorations, we found \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline
**Answers to Questions** & **Doctors** & **Technicians** & _p Value (Test)_ \\ \hline I9\_TitanIUM & 34/55 (61.8\%) & 46/55 (83.6\%) & 0.010 (Pearson Chi-Square) \\ \hline I9\_CUSTOM ABUTMENT & 18/55 (32.7\%) & 9/55 (16.4\%) & 0.046 (Pearson Chi-Square) \\ \hline I17\_D & 21/55 (38.2\%) & 10/55 (18.2\%) & 0.010 (Pearson Chi-Square) \\ \hline I18\_A & 46/55 (83.6\%) & 35/55 (63.6\%) & 0.017 (Pearson Chi-Square) \\ \hline I23\_B & 22/55 (40.0\%) & 10/55 (18.2\%) & 0.011 (Pearson Chi-Square) \\ \hline I23\_F & 8/55 (14.5\%) & 0/55 (0.0\%) & 0.005 (Fisher’s Exact Test) \\ \hline I24\_B & 22/55 (40.0\%) & 7/55 (12.7\%) & 0.001 (Pearson Chi-Square) \\ \hline I24\_F & 10/55 (18.2\%) & 0/55 (0.0\%) & 0.000 (Pearson Chi-Square) \\ \hline I25\_A & 8/55 (14.5\%) & 19/55 (34.5\%) & 0.014 (Pearson Chi-Square) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Correlation between the answers to pairs of the questions from the two questionnaires (doctors-technicians). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Crosstab**} \\ \hline  & & I23\_K & & \\ \hline  & & 0 & 1 & Total \\ \hline I27\_A & 0 & Count & 16\({}_{\text{a}}\) & 0\({}_{\text{b}}\) & 16 \\ \hline  & & \%within I23\_K & 36.4\% & 0.0\% & 29.1\% \\ \hline  & 1 & Count & 28\({}_{\text{a}}\) & 11\({}_{\text{b}}\) & 39 \\ \hline  & & \%within I23\_K & 63.6\% & 100.0\% & 70.9\% \\ \hline Total & Count & 44 & 11 & 55 \\ \hline  & & \%within I23\_K & 100.0\% & 100.0\% & 100.0\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Reparation due to failure of the esthetic component and the metallic casted framework with cemented crowns used at the maxilla. Each subscript letter denotes a subset of I23\_K categories whose column proportion do not differ significantly from each other at the 0.05 level. Test: [PERSON]’s Exact test, \(p\) value = 0.022928.  
that age was a significant variable in terms of the number of full-arch prosthetic restorations. The biggest difference has appeared between the group that made 1-9 restorations and the one with more than 20 restorations, a larger experience to approach these complex rehabilitations being obvious. The treatment leading role item offered a different clinic versus lab perspective. While more than half of Romanian dentists claim the responsibility for the design decision, half of the dental technicians declare the common contribution of the two specialists. The situation is quite different from the study from Saudi Arabia, wherein 49% of the cases the dentist is managing the treatment plan [14]. In [PERSON]'s study from 2015 [13] 39.3% assign the doctor as a leader, whereas 28.9% of the respondents' report that there is a doctor-technician teamwork. However, due to the fact that dental technicians have claimed in this study also that in 14.5% of the cases they step forward, some problems concerning the doctor's training in implant restoration treatment planning arise. Repercussions involve prosthetic complications that occur during the treatment plan. Analyzing results for the type of the preferred retaining system, the screw-retained restorations were the most voted in both groups. This result is similar with [PERSON]'s study [15] but opposite to [PERSON]'s study [10] where the cement-retained prosthesis was the favorite restoration of most of the dentists across the countries surveyed. Furthermore, the percent obtained for the lab Romanian professionals is different from the Japanese study [13] where 61.4% of the technicians declare a higher demand for cement-retained restorations. Regarding the most used type of abutment, the answers are different in the two groups, the chosen options being titanium and custom abutment, but in different quantum.