3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Rehabilitation of the esthetic zone using multiple adjacent individual implant-supported restorations: Where are the limits? Translated title: Rehabilitación de la zona estética mediante múltiples restauraciones individuales adyacentes apoyadas por implantes: ¿cuáles son los límites?

      case-report

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          ABSTRACT Rehabilitation of the partially edentulous anterior maxilla is considered one of the most difficult challenges for the restorative dentist due to the esthetic, functional and psychological implications. Implant-supported restorations provide an appealing treatment alternative that responds to today’s patient expectations. The gold standard for this scenario has been the use of an implant-supported fixed partial denture with pontics that masks the soft tissue deficiencies, with acceptable esthetic results. However, nowadays patients are looking for individual single crowns since they believe that this type of restorations resemble the natural dentition, are easy to clean and floss. From the dentist perspective, they are easy to maintain and in case of prosthetic complications they can be repaired or changed without compromising the adjacent restorations. Three parameters have been identified that could guide the decision-making process when multiple adjacent implant supported restorations (MAISR) are selected as the treatment of choice: 1) Smile line 2) Inter-implant distance and tooth-implant distance 3) Patient's expectations and ability to clean.

          Translated abstract

          RESUMEN La rehabilitación del maxilar anterior parcialmente edéntulo se considera uno de los retos más difíciles para el dentista restaurador debido a las implicaciones estéticas, funcionales y psicológicas. Las restauraciones apoyadas por implantes proporcionan una alternativa de tratamiento atractiva que responde a las expectativas actuales de los pacientes. El patrón de referencia en este contexto ha sido el uso de una prótesis parcial fija con implantes con pónticos para enmascarar las deficiencias de tejido blando, el cual ha tenido resultados estéticos aceptables. Sin embargo, hoy en día los pacientes están buscando coronas individuales ya que creen que este tipo de restauraciones se asemejan a la dentición natural y son fáciles de limpiar con cepillado e hilo dental. Desde la perspectiva del dentista, son fáciles de mantener y en caso de complicaciones protésicas pueden ser reparadas o cambiadas sin comprometer las restauraciones adyacentes. Se han identificado tres parámetros que podrían guiar el proceso de toma de decisiones cuando se seleccionan varias restauraciones compatibles con implantes adyacentes como el tratamiento de elección: 1) Línea de sonrisa 2) Distancia entre implantes y distancia de implante dental 3) Las expectativas del paciente y la facilidad de limpieza.

          Related collections

          Most cited references18

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The effect of inter-implant distance on the height of inter-implant bone crest.

          The biologic width around implants has been well documented in the literature. Once an implant is uncovered, vertical bone loss of 1.5 to 2 mm is evidenced apical to the newly established implant-abutment interface. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the lateral dimension of the bone loss at the implant-abutment interface and to determine if this lateral dimension has an effect on the height of the crest of bone between adjacent implants separated by different distances. Radiographic measurements were taken in 36 patients who had 2 adjacent implants present. Lateral bone loss was measured from the crest of bone to the implant surface. In addition, the crestal bone loss was also measured from a line drawn between the tops of the adjacent implants. The data were divided into 2 groups, based on the inter-implant distance at the implant shoulder. The results demonstrated that the lateral bone loss was 1.34 mm from the mesial implant shoulder and 1.40 mm from the distal implant shoulder between the adjacent implants. In addition, the crestal bone loss for implants with a greater than 3 mm distance between them was 0.45 mm, while the implants that had a distance of 3 mm or less between them had a crestal bone loss of 1.04 mm. This study demonstrates that there is a lateral component to the bone loss around implants in addition to the more commonly discussed vertical component. The clinical significance of this phenomenon is that the increased crestal bone loss would result in an increase in the distance between the base of the contact point of the adjacent crowns and the crest of bone. This could determine whether the papilla was present or absent between 2 implants as has previously been reported between 2 teeth. Selective utilization of implants with a smaller diameter at the implant-abutment interface may be beneficial when multiple implants are to be placed in the esthetic zone so that a minimum of 3 mm of bone can be retained between them at the implant-abutment level.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Comparison of survival and complication rates of tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and implant-supported FDPs and single crowns (SCs).

            The objective of this systematic review was to assess and compare the 5- and 10-year survival of different types of tooth-supported and implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis (FDPs) and single crowns (SCs) and to describe the incidence of biological and technical complications. Three electronic searches complemented by manual searching were conducted to identify prospective and retrospective cohort studies on FDPs and SCs with a mean follow-up time of at least 5 years. Patients had to have been examined clinically at the follow-up visit. Failure and complication rates were analyzed using random-effects Poisson's regression models to obtain summary estimates of 5- and 10-year survival proportions. Meta-analysis of the included studies indicated an estimated 5-year survival of conventional tooth-supported FDPs of 93.8%, cantilever FDPs of 91.4%, solely implant-supported FDPs of 95.2%, combined tooth-implant-supported FDPs of 95.5% and implant-supported SCs of 94.5%. Moreover, after 10 years of function the estimated survival decreased to 89.2% for conventional FDPs, to 80.3% for cantilever FDPs, to 86.7% for implant-supported FDPs, to 77.8% for combined tooth-implant-supported FDPs and to 89.4% for implant-supported SCs. Despite high survival rates, 38.7% the patients with implant-supported FDPs had some complications after the 5-year observation period. This is compared with 15.7% for conventional FDPs and 20.6% for cantilever FDPs, respectively. For conventional tooth-supported FDPs, the most frequent complications were biological complications like caries and loss of pulp vitality. Compared with tooth-supported FDPs, the incidence of technical complications was significantly higher for the implant-supported reconstructions. The most frequent technical complications were fractures of the veneer material (ceramic fractures or chipping), abutment or screw loosening and loss of retention. On the basis of the results of the present systematic review, planning of prosthetic rehabilitations should preferentially include conventional end abutment tooth-supported FDPs, solely implant-supported FDPs or implant-supported SCs. Only for reasons of anatomical structures or patient-centered preferences and as a second option should cantilever tooth-supported FDPs or FDPs supported by combination of implants and teeth be chosen.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Peri-implantitis in partially edentulous patients: association with inadequate plaque control.

              The aim of the present study was to describe some clinical periodontal features of partially edentulous patients referred for the treatment of peri-implantitis. The 23 subjects involved in this study were selected from consecutive patients referred to the department of Periodontology Södra Alvsborgs Hospital, Borås, Sweden, for treatment of peri-implantitis during 2006. The patients had clinical signs of peri-implantitis around one or more dental implants (i.e.>or=6 mm pockets, bleeding on pockets and/or pus and radiographic images of bone loss to>or=3 threads of the implants) and remaining teeth in the same and/or opposite jaw. The following clinical variables were recorded: Plaque Index (PI), Gingival Bleeding Index (GBI) Probing Pocket Depth (PPD), Access/capability to oral hygiene at implant site (yes/no), Function Time. The patients were categorized in the following sub-groups: Periodontitis/No periodontitis, Bone loss/No bone loss at teeth, Smoker/Non-smokers. Out of the 23 patients, the majority (13) had minimal bone loss at teeth and no current periodontitis; 5 had bone loss at teeth exceeding 1/3 of the length of the root but not current periodontitis and only 5 had current periodontitis. Six patients were smokers (i.e. smoking more than 10 cig/day). The site level analysis showed that only 17 (6%) of the 281 teeth present had >or=1 pocket of >or=6mm, compared to 58 (53%) of the total 109 implants (28 ITI and 81 Brånemark); 74% of the implants had no accessibility to proper oral hygiene. High proportion of implants with diagnosis of peri-implantitis were associated with no accessibility/capability for appropriate oral hygiene measures, while accessibility/capability was rarely associated with peri-implantitis. Indeed 48% of the implants presenting peri-implantitis were those with no accessibility/capability for proper oral hygiene (65% positive predict value) with respect to 4% of the implants with accessibility/capability (82% negative predict value). The results of the study indicate that local factors such as accessibility for oral hygiene at the implant sites seems to be related to the presence or absence of peri-implantitis. Peri-implantitis was a frequent finding in subjects having signs of minimal loss of supporting bone around the remaining natural dentition and no signs of presence of periodontitis (i.e. presence of periodontal pockets of >or=6 mm at natural teeth). Only 6 of the examinated subjects were smokers. In view of these results we should like to stress the importance of giving proper oral hygiene instructions to the patients who are rehabilitated with dental implant and of proper prosthetic constructions that allow accessibility for oral hygiene around implants.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                rfoua
                Revista Facultad de Odontología Universidad de Antioquia
                Rev Fac Odontol Univ Antioq
                Universidad de Antioquia (Medellín, Antioquia, Colombia )
                0121-246X
                June 2019
                : 30
                : 2
                : 236-243
                Affiliations
                [1] Bogota Bogotá orgnamePontificia Universidad Javeriana Colombia
                [2] Cali Valle del Cauca orgnameUniversidad del Valle orgdiv1School of dentistry Colombia
                [3] Ann Arbor Michigan orgnameUniversity of Michigan orgdiv1School of Dentistry orgdiv2Department of Periodontics and Oral Medicine United States
                Article
                S0121-246X2019000100236 S0121-246X(19)03000200236
                10.17533/udea.rfo.v30n2a11
                59aab049-4da7-470f-8133-1e78b306029d

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

                History
                : 09 October 2018
                : 17 July 2018
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 20, Pages: 8
                Product

                SciELO Colombia

                Categories
                Case report

                dental implants,implantes dentales,corona retenida por tornillo,partial edentulous,edéntulo parcial,screw retained crown

                Comments

                Comment on this article