## 4 Discussion
There is a statistically significant difference between the two categories of answers: the technicians declared a higher percent of titanium abutment 83.6% versus 61.8% in doctor's options) while clinicians declare that they request custom abutment in 32.7% of cases (versus 16.4% percent of technicians' reports). The custom abutment using precious metals is an excellent option for the healing phase of the soft tissue in the implant treatment and the final restoration fits perfectly. Therefore, this disparity needs to be addressed in dental and technical education curricula. Results obtained are different from a similar study from Saudi Arabia in 2018 [14], where a technician's study lot stated they use equally titanium abutments (37%) and custom abutments (34%), while the CAD/CAM abutments were more than a half. The percentage for titanium abutment is fairly high compared to a third stated by [PERSON] et al. (2015) in a study from Japan [13]. The elected technique for the full and partial arch implant impression was open tray technique with connected transfer copings, results which are similar to [PERSON]'s research [8] A study from Israel (2017) [9] states that prosthodonic specialists used custom open tray, whereas the generalist dentist used the stock tray impression. In our analysis, statistical tests show a positive correlation be-tween dentists' experience and open tray impression technique without connecting the transfer copings for full arch implant impression. However, there is a statistical difference regarding the digital impression technique for implant-supported crowns or bridges and the open tray technique with connected transfer copings for full arch impression. Even that doctors vote for them, technicians report that they are not sent so often to the dental laboratory. A disagreement between the two specialists was raised also in the matter of favor-ite anterior implant restoration, all-ceramic zirconia crown (similar to the results of [PERSON]'s study [14], and porcelain fused to the metal crown being the chosen options for dentists versus technicians. Japanese technicians reported 43.4% porcelain fused to metal and 27.1% full zirconia [13]. Full zirconia crowns on implants were a solution that statistically showed a correlation with the clinical experience, most of the doctors making this choice having under 10 years of clinical experience. This result may be explained by the rising interest in digital dentistry and tendency of young doctors to try new technologies. For the posterior restoration solution, the choice of the two members of the team was porcelain fused to metal crown followed by the full zirconia crown. The answers were compared to [PERSON]'s study [14], where the percentages registered for the full zirconia crown and for the porcelain fused to the metal crown with the metallic occlusal surface were equal. In the Asian dental laboratory [13] 31.4% is attributed to the porcelain fused to metal crown, and the second place is taken by the metal-based plated with composite resin full esthetic crown, which in our study only takes 9.1%. Regarding the maxillary and mandibular full-arch fixed implant restoration, the resin material polymerized in the lab, acrylic teeth, and metallic milled framework solution gained votes from the Romanian clinicians. This prosthetic option was statistically associated with clinical experience. Besides their physical property's improvement from the last years, as the wear resistance and the discoloration, the indirect composite resin has become one of the main choices for plating materials that bonds chemically to titanium; this happens because of the increased number of CAD/CAM designed titanium framework and the porcelain, in this case, is not reliable. This option offers the advantage of direct intraoral repair if needed, in case of fissures or fractures of esthetic components and can absorb a bigger shock from an occlusal force compared to porcelain [16].