MULTI UNIT ABUTMENTS RECOMMENDED IN PROSTHETIC AND SURGICAL IMPLANTOLOGY TREATMENT (CASE REPORT)
Abstract
Possibility for choosing multi-unit abutments in oral implantology create prosthetic flexibility on implant supported restorations. Multi-unit abutments offer a level of predictable esthetics, with consistent fit and function, that has greatly improved the effectiveness of implant supported constructions. The aim of this study is to show proven and documented clinical efficacy of multi-unit abutments, cost-effective solutions and portfolio of prosthetic restorations as one of the most comprehensive available. A case of a 45-year old patient with partial edentulous maxilla and previously prosthodontic treatment failure is presented. The clinical and paraclinical examination showed that the limited edentulous spaces were marginally acceptable for implant supported restorations. Combination of multi-unit abutments and definitive prosthetic construction were delivered six months after implant osseointegration.
Keywords:abutments, dental implants, restorations, prosthodontic treatment, esthetic.
References
2.Sahin S., Çehreli M.C. The significance of passive framework fit in implant prosthodontics: Current status. Implant Dent 2001;10: 85–92.
3.Jemt T., Book K. Prosthesis misfit and marginal bone loss in edentulous patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11: 620–625.
4.Wadhwani C., Prosthetic options for Dental implants. Decisions in dentistry, May 2016, pp 24-26.
5.Gervais M.J., Hatzipanagiotis, Wilson P.R. Cross-pining: the philosophy of retrievability applied practically to fixed, implant-supported prostheses. Aust Dent J 2008; 53: 74-82.
6.Clausen G.F. The lingual locking screw for implant-retained restorations–aesthetics and retrievability. Aust Prosthodont J 1995; 9:17-20.
7.Kallus T., Bessing C. Loose gold screws frequently occur in full-arch fixed prostheses supported by osseointegrated implants after 5 years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1994; 9:169–178.
8.Lee H., Ercoli C., Funkenbusch P.D., Feng C. Effect of subgingival depth of implant placement on the dimensional accuracy of the implant impression: An in vitro study. J Prosthetic Dent 2008; 99:107–113.
9.Jemt T., Rubenstein J.E., Carlsson L., Lang B.R. Measuring fit at the implant prosthodontic interface. J Prosthetic Dent 1996; 75:314–325.
10.Naconecy M.M., Teixeira E.R., Shinkai R.S.A., Frasca L.C., Cervieri A. Evaluation of the accuracy of 3 transfer techniques for implant-supported prostheses with multiple abutments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004; 19:192–198.
11.Gervais M.J., Hatzipanagiotis, Wilson P.R. Cross-pining: the philosophy of retrievability applied practically to fixed, implant-supported prostheses. Aust Dent J 2008; 53: 74-82.
12.Wadhwani C. et al. Technique for controlling the cement for an implant crown: J Prosthet Dent 2010;102: 57-8
13.Wilson T.G.: The positive relation between excess cement and peri-implant disease. J Perio 009;80-1388-92 5.
14.Papaspyridakos P., Benic G.I., Hogsett V.L.,White G.S., Lal K., Gallucci G.O. Accuracy of implant casts generated from splinting and nonsplinting impression techniques for edentulous patients: An optical scanning study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23:676–681.
15.Hebel K, Gajjar R, Hofstede T. Single-tooth replacement: bridge vs. implant-supported restoration. J Can Dent Assoc. 2000;66(8):435–438.
16.Tonetti M.S. , Hammerle C.H. Advances in bone augmentation to enable dental implant placement. J Clin Periodontol. 2008;35(8 suppl):168–172.
17.Nowzari H., Molayem S., Chiu C.H., Rich S.K. The thickness of facial alveolar bone overlying healthy maxillary anterior teeth. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. May 11, 2010.
