Analysis of US Dental Implant Industry Payments Among Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons and Periodontists



Ryan, M Nguyen


Ryan M Nguyen1, Michael J Cimba1, Kevin C Lee2, Thomas Schlieve3, Neeraj Panchal1
Neeraj Panchal1
1Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, School of Dental Medicine; 2Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University, Irving Medical Center; 3Department of Surgery, Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, UT Southwestern/Parkland Memorial Hospital 

 

Introduction

The purpose of this study is to compare the industry payments among oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS) and periodontics (Perio).

Methods

The Open Payments database was queried for industry payments from 10 well-known dental implant manufacturers between January 2014 to December 2020. Each payment identified the physician, dollar value, reason, year, and company responsible. The number of payments, total amount paid, and research-specific payments were compared between OMS and Perio using chi-squared and t-tests where applicable.

Results

Overall, dental implant companies gifted both OMS and Perio $47,106,015.62. These companies paid 40.4% of all OMS and 39.9% of all Perio. Perio received a greater mean payment amount compared to OMS ($279.56 vs $231.35; p<0.01). Out of all the payments to OMS and Perio, only 384 (0.2%) were for research purposes. Perio received more research funding when compared to OMS (0.4% vs 0.1%; p<0.01). Implant surgeons received the most money from Nobel Biocare ($14,502,705.66), followed by Zimmer Biomet ($11,387,631.93), and BioHorizons ($7,726,788.76). Hiossen gave the highest amount per payment to implant surgeons (mean: $18,614.90; median: $10,800.00). The largest source of payments were honorarium payments ($8,818,489.37), followed by consulting fees ($7,852,209.37). Over 70% of payments were used to cover food and beverages.

Conclusion

Perio appears to have increased research funding in dental implantology when it comes to clinical research. They receive more money from implant companies when compared to OMS. OMS must make greater efforts to develop clinical research to receive funding from industry.