Abstract
The most important factor in the treatment of fully edentulous patients using implants is the shape of the definitive prosthesis. After the shape of the definitive prosthesis is determined, residual bone analysis and selection of the implant type, number and position should be followed. In this case, for restoration of an edentulous patient fully implanted (except the maxillary right lateral incisor) without considering definitive prosthesis, facial esthetics and possibility of fixed type prosthesis were evaluated using complete denture. It was determined that the fixed type prosthesis was possible. Implants that could not be used for the definitive prosthesis were excluded from the treatment plan and fixed type provisional restorations were fabricated. After four months of provisional restorations, the patient showed stable occlusion and esthetic satisfaction. Definitive prosthesis was made of zirconia using CAD/CAM (computer aided design and computer aided manufacturing). The results were satisfactory during the 3 months of follow-up period after termination of treatment. (J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2017;55:427-35)
REFERENCES
1.Almog DM., Sanchez R. Correlation between planned prosthetic and residual bone trajectories in dental implants. J Prosthet Dent. 1999. 81:562–7.
2.Misch CE. Dental implant prosthetics. 2nd ed.St. Louis: Mosby; Elsevier;2015. p. 187.
3.Turner KA., Missirlian DM. Restoration of the extremely worn dentition. J Prosthet Dent. 1984. 52:467–74.
4.Mericske-Stern RD., Taylor TD., Belser U. Management of the edentulous patient. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2000. 11:108–25.
5.Sadowsky SJ. The role of complete denture principles in implant prosthodontics. J Calif Dent Assoc. 2003. 31:905–9.
6.Neves FD., Mendonça G., Fernandes Neto AJ. Analysis of influence of lip line and lip support in esthetics and selection of maxillary implant-supported prosthesis design. J Prosthet Dent. 2004. 91:286–8.
7.Savabi O., Nejatidanesh F. Interocclusal record for fixed implant-supported prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent. 2004. 92:602–3.
8.Tarnow DP., Cho SC., Wallace SS. The effect of inter-implant distance on the height of inter-implant bone crest. J Periodontol. 2000. 71:546–9.
9.Carlsson GE. Dental occlusion: modern concepts and their application in implant prosthodontics. Odontology. 2009. 97:8–17.
10.Wittneben JG., Millen C., Brägger U. Clinical performance of screw-versus cement-retained fixed implant-supported reconstructions-a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014. 29:84–98.
11.Rajan M., Gunaseelan R. Fabrication of a cement- and screw-retained implant prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent. 2004. 92:578–80.
12.Abdulmajeed AA., Lim KG., Närhi TO., Cooper LF. Complete-arch implant-supported monolithic zirconia fixed dental prostheses: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2016. 115:672–7.
13.Misch CE. Dental Implant Prosthetics. 2nd ed.St. Louis: Mosby; Elsevier;2015. p. 277.