Journal List > J Korean Acad Prosthodont > v.55(3) > 1034937

Kang, Park, Lee, and Shin: Implant supported prosthesis with high performance polymers using a double scanning method


Nowadays, the development of dental scanner and CAD/CAM technology can facilitate the fabrication of hybrid prosthesis. Double scanning technique, scanning a trial prosthesis and master model, made it possible to realize virtual design and simplify the laboratory work. Instead of using the metal or zirconia framework with composite, ceramic or denture tooth, the new high performance polymer Polyetherketoneketone (Pekkton, Cendres+Métaux, Biel, Switzerland) as a framework with Polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) veneering teeth (Visio-lign, Bredent, Senden, Germany) was used in this case. This case report showed an acceptable treatment outcome and satisfaction of patient using Pekkton and Visio-lign. However, long term clinical evaluation is needed. (J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2017;55:305-10)


1.Cho Y., Raigrodski AJ. The rehabilitation of an edentulous mandible with a CAD/CAM zirconia framework and heat-pressed lithium disilicate ceramic crowns: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 2014. 111:443–7.
2.Karl M., Graef F., Wichmann M., Krafft T. Passivity of fit of CAD/CAM and copy-milled frameworks, veneered frameworks, and anatomically contoured, zirconia ceramic, implant-supported fixed prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2012. 107:232–8.
3.Zarb G., Hobkirk JA., Eckert SE., Jacob RF. Prosthodontic treatment for edentulous patients. 13th ed.St. Louis: Mosby;2013. p. 53–120.
4.Chee W., Jivraj S. Treatment planning of the edentulous mandible. Br Dent J. 2006. 201:337–47.
5.Drago C., Gurney L. Maintenance of implant hybrid prostheses: clinical and laboratory procedures. J Prosthodont. 2013. 22:28–35.
6.Gallucci GO., Avrampou M., Taylor JC., Elpers J., Thalji G., Cooper LF. Maxillary Implant-Supported Fixed Prosthesis: A Survey of Reviews and Key Variables for Treatment Planning. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016. 31:s192–7.
7.Bacchi A., Consani RL., Mesquita MF., Dos Santos MB. Effect of framework material and vertical misfit on stress distribution in implant-supported partial prosthesis under load application: 3-D finite element analysis. Acta Odontol Scand. 2013. 71:1243–9.
8.Erkmen E., Meriç G., Kurt A., Tunç Y., Eser A. Biomechanical comparison of implant retained fixed partial dentures with fiber reinforced composite versus conventional metal frameworks: a 3D FEA study. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2011. 4:107–16.
9.Jemt T., Bäck T., Petersson A. Precision of CNC-milled titanium frameworks for implant treatment in the edentulous jaw. Int J Prosthodont. 1999. 12:209–15.
10.Taufall S., Eichberger M., Schmidlin PR., Stawarczyk B. Fracture load and failure types of different veneered polyetheretherketone fixed dental prostheses. Clin Oral Investig. 2016. 20:2493–500.

Fig. 1.
Before implant placement. (A) Panoramic view, (B) Intraoral view.
Fig. 2.
After implant placement. (A) Panoramic view, (B) Intraoral view.
Fig. 3.
Impression and jaw relation. (A) Primary impression taken in stock tray using alginate, (B) Final impression obtained by individual tray with polyvinylsiloxane, (C) Maxillomandibular relationship record.
Fig. 4.
Designing final framework using double scanning method. (A) Master cast, (B) Try-in denture, (C) Superimposition of scanned STL file, (D) Designed CAD image of Pekkton framework.
Fig. 5.
Final prosthesis fabrication. (A) Pekkton framework, (B) Cemented Visio-lign on Pekkton framework, (C) Gingival tissue formation, (D) Final prosthesis.
Fig. 6.
Delivery of final prosthesis. (A) Left lateral view, (B) Frontal view, (C) Right lateral view.
Similar articles