Moy PK, Iacono VJ. Impact of biological and technological advances on implant dentistry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011; 26:7-10
Lund JP. Introduction: It is time to tackle denture disability. In: Feine JS, Carlsson GE (eds). Carol Stream, IL: Quintessence; 2003
Walls AW, Steele JG. Geriatric oral health issues in the United Kingdom. Int Dent J. 2001; 51:(3)183-187
Mojon P, Thomason JM, Walls AW. The impact of falling rates of edentulism. Int J Prosthodont. 2004; 17:(4)434-440
Implementation of Directive 2007/47/EC for Active Implantable Materials.Brussels: Cosmetic and Medical Devices Directive;
Wood MR, Vermilyea SG. A review of selected dental literature on evidence-based treatment planning for dental implants: report of the Committee on Research in Fixed Prosthodontics of the Academy of Fixed Prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent. 2004; 92:(5)447-462
Malo P, de Araújo Nobre M, Lopes A, Moss SM, Molina GJ. A longitudinal study of the survival of All-on-4 implants in the mandible with up to 10 years of follow-up. J Am Dent Assoc. 2011; 142:(3)310-320
Anitua E, Orive G. Short implants in maxillae and mandibles: a retrospective study with 1 to 8 years of follow-up. J Periodontol. 2010; 81:(6)819-826
Hobkirk JA, Abdel-Latif HH, Howlett J, Welfare R, Moles DR. Prosthetic treatment time and satisfaction of edentulous patients treated with conventional or implant-supported complete mandibular dentures: a case-control. Int J Prosthodont. 2008; 21:(6)489-495
J Prosthet Dent. 1998; 79:(1)2-108
Thomason JM Two implant retained overdentures – a review of the literature supporting the McGill and York consensus statements. J Dentistry. 2011; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent2011.08.017
Mackie A, Lyons K, Thomson WM, Payne AG. Mandibular two-implant overdentures: three-year prosthodontic maintenance using the locator attachment system. Int J Prosthodont. 2011; 24:(4)328-331
Radiation Protection: Cone Beam CT for Dental and Maxillofacial Radiology. 2011. http://www.sedentexct.eu
Dawson ALondon: Quintessence; 2009
Esposito M Interventions for replacing missing teeth: augmentation procedures of the maxillary sinus.
The loss of all teeth from one or both dental arches is a significant disability affecting self-confidence, communication, masticatory function and aesthetics. Whilst missing teeth cannot be restored to the natural state, the development of a prosthetic dentition has been a goal of dental science throughout the centuries. Contemporary techniques allow for the replacement of missing dentition with fixed or removable solutions, solving many of the problems. Implant dentistry has transformed this area of medicine. This article provides dental practitioners with an overview of this important area of patient care.
Clinical Relevance: Dental practitioners in clinical practice will frequently see edentulism; a good understanding of the available options for rehabilitation is essential.
Article
The aim of this article is to provide the busy practitioner with a clear overview of contemporary implant-retained solutions to edentulism, with the emphasis being on the techniques supported by good clinical results over a clinically appropriate term. Prominence is given to techniques most suited to a general dental practitioner with some experience of implant dentistry.
Elsewhere within this issue of Dental Update there is information regarding pretreatment assessment, treatment planning and replacement of missing teeth with implant-retained solutions (pp128–134). This article will assume that prior knowledge and only information specific to full-arch restorations will be discussed.
There is no doubt that dental implants have had a major influence on the restorative options in restorative dentistry. The reliability of contemporary implant dentistry is challenging our perception of restorative dentistry in the wider sense, with the pressure of assessing prognoses for heavily restored teeth as compared to the reliable provision of an osseointegrated replacement. The particular challenges of edentulism have, through the ages, provided the profession with a significant challenge. A significant improvement in quality of life has been provided with the osseointegrated solution.1 The benefits of osseointegration are unlikely to be available to all, hence the need to continue to manage edentulism conventionally, with dental implants offering an improvement upon edentulism, but not a replacement for the natural dentition.
Register now to continue reading
Thank you for visiting Dental Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:
