Howe MS, Keys W, Richards D. Long-term (10-year) dental implant survival: a systematic review and sensitivity meta-analysis. J Dent. 2019; 84:9-21 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2019.03.008
Moraschini V, Poubel LA, Ferreira VF, Barboza Edos S. Evaluation of survival and success rates of dental implants reported in longitudinal studies with a follow-up period of at least 10 years: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015; 44:377-388 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2014.10.023
Jung RE, Zembic A, Pjetursson BE Systematic review of the survival rate and the incidence of biological, technical, and aesthetic complications of single crowns on implants reported in longitudinal studies with a mean follow-up of 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23:2-21 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02547.x
Pavel K, Seydlova M, Dostalova T Dental implants and improvement of oral health-related quality of life. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2012; 40:65-70 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.2011.00668.x
Brånemark PI, Hansson BO, Adell R Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-year period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Suppl. 1977; 16:1-132
Wittneben JG, Buser D, Belser UC, Brägger U. Peri-implant soft tissue conditioning with provisional restorations in the esthetic zone: the dynamic compression technique. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2013; 33:447-455 https://doi.org/10.11607/prd.1268
Buser D, Belser U, Wismeijer D. ITI treatment guide; v.1: Implant therapy in the esthetic zone, single-tooth replacements.Portland: Ringgold Inc; 2007
Furze D, Byrne A, Alam S, Wittneben JG. Esthetic outcome of implant supported crowns with and without peri-implant conditioning using provisional fixed prosthesis: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2016; 18:1153-1162 https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12416
Staubli N, Walter C, Schmidt JC Excess cement and the risk of peri-implant disease – a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017; 28:1278-1290 https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12954
Shor A, Schuler R, Goto Y. Indirect implant-supported fixed provisional restoration in the esthetic zone: fabrication technique and treatment workflow. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2008; 20:82-97 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.2008.00156.x
David R. Provisional restoration for an osseointegrated single maxillary anterior implant. J Can Dent Assoc. 2008; 74:609-612
González-Martín O, Lee E Contour management of implant restorations for optimal emergence profiles: guidelines for immediate and delayed provisional restorations. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2020; 40:61-70 https://doi.org/10.11607/prd.4422
Steigmann M, Monje A, Chan HL, Wang HL. Emergence profile design based on implant position in the esthetic zone. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2014; 34:559-563 https://doi.org/10.11607/prd.2016
Tarnow DP, Magner AW, Fletcher P. The effect of the distance from the contact point to the crest of bone on the presence or absence of the interproximal dental papilla. J Periodontol. 1992; 63:995-996 https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1992.63.12.995
Provisional restorations provide numerous advantages during dental implant treatment including manipulation of the peri-implant soft tissue contour to optimise the aesthetic outcome. Chairside construction expedites this stage of the treatment to a single visit for the benefit and convenience of both the dental practitioner and patient. Additional laboratory costs typically incurred for this stage are also avoided. As the expectations and demands for restorations of implants continue to increase, in terms of time, cost and aesthetic outcome, this chairside approach is an important technique for the armamentarium of a dental implant practitioner.
CPD/Clinical Relevance: This chairside technique allows dental implant practitioners to provide aesthetic provisional implant crowns in a single visit.
Article
Endo-osseous implants are frequently advocated to replace missing teeth above traditional tooth replacement options, such as conventional fixed bridges. Implant-supported prostheses are highly successful with biological and functional benefits.1 A recent systematic review estimated a dental implant's 10-year survival rate to be 93.2%,2 in line with previous systematic reviews.3,4 Furthermore, for single-tooth replacement in the aesthetic zone (the dentition displayed on full smiling), implant restorations have been illustrated to significantly improve a patient's oral health-related quality of life.5 Major drawbacks of this treatment modality include that it can incur a greater financial burden and involve increased treatment duration compared with alternative treatment modalities.
There is a drive from both patients and dental practitioners to deliver implant-supported restorations within shorter timeframes, particularly in the aesthetic zone. The conventional, staged provision of implant treatment is being challenged by more expedited contemporary approaches to management.6 Significant advantages can be procured by the chairside construction of a provisional implant crown because it allows this critical stage, for optimizing treatment outcomes, to progress more efficiently. This article illustrates how this can be achieved.
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:
