Switch to Dark theme

References

Buser D, Martin W, Belser UC. Optimizing esthetics for implant restorations in the anterior maxilla: anatomic and surgical considerations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004; 19:43-61
Dawson A, Chen S, Buser D, Cordaro L, Martin W, Belser U. The SAC Classification in Implant Dentistry.: Quintessence Publishing Co Ltd; 2009
Pjetursson BE, Brägger U, Lang NP. Comparison of survival and complication rates of tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and implant-supported FDPs and single crowns (SCs). Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007; 18:97-113
Buser D, von Arx T, ten Bruggenkate CM, Weingart D. Basic surgical principles with ITI implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2000; 11:59-68
Morton D, Chen ST, Martin WC. Consensus statements and recommended clinical procedures regarding optimizing esthetic outcomes in implant dentistry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29:216-220
Chen S, Buser D. Implants in post-extraction sites: a literature update. In: Buser D, Belser U, Wismeijer D (eds). Berlin: Quintessence; 2008
Schropp L, Isidor F. Timing of implant placement relative to tooth extraction. J Oral Rehabil. 2008; 35:33-43
Chen ST, Buser D. Clinical and esthetic outcomes of implants placed in post-extraction sites. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009; 24:186-217
Araujo MG, Sukekava F, Wennstrom JL, Lindhe J. Ridge alterations following implant placement in fresh extraction sockets: an experimental study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol. 2005; 32:645-652
Chen ST, Buser D. Clinical and esthetic outcomes of implants placed in post-extraction sites. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009; 24:186-217
Chen ST, Beagle J, Jensen SS, Chiapasco M, Darby I. Consensus statements and recommended clinical procedures regarding surgical techniques. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009; 24:272-278
Chen ST, Wilson TG, Hämmerle CH. Immediate or early placement of implants following tooth extraction: review of biologic basis, clinical procedures, and outcomes. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004; 19:12-25
Hämmerle CH, Chen ST, Wilson TG Consensus statements and recommended clinical procedures regarding the placement of implants in extraction sockets. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004; 19:26-28
Glossary of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants. In: Laney WR (ed). Berlin: Quintessence; 2007
Buser D, Chappuis V, Bornstein MM, Wittneben JG, Frei M, Belser UC. Long-term stability of contour augmentation with early implant placement following single tooth extraction in the esthetic zone: a prospective, cross-sectional study in 41 patients with a 5–to 9–year follow-up. J Periodontol. 2013; 84:1517-1527
Chiapasco M, Casentini P, Zaniboni M. Bone augmentation procedures in implant dentistry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009; 24:237-259
Jensen SS, Terheyden H. Bone augmentation procedures in localized defects in the alveolar ridge: clinical results with different bone grafts and bone-substitute materials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009; 24:218-236
Sailer I, Mühlemann S, Zwahlen M. Cemented and screw-retained implant reconstructions: a systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23:163-201
Wismeijer D, Brägger U, Evans C, Kapos T, Kelly JR, Millen C Consensus statements and recommended clinical procedures regarding restorative materials and techniques for implant dentistry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29:137-140
Weber HP, Kim DM, Ng MW. Peri-implant soft-tissue health surrounding cement- and screw-retained implant restorations: a multi-center, 3-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006; 17:375-379
Wilson TG. The positive relationship between excess cement and peri-implant disease: a prospective clinical endoscopic study. J Periodontol. 2009; 80:1388-1392
Chee WW, Duncan J, Afshar M, Moshaverinia A. Evaluation of the amount of excess cement around the margins of cement-retained dental implant restorations: the effect of the cement application method. J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 109:216-221
Weber HP, Sukotjo C. Does the type of implant prosthesis affect outcomes in the partially edentulous patient?. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007; 22:140-172
Keenan AV, Levenson D. Are ceramic and metal implant abutments performance similar?. Evid Based Dent. 2010; 11:68-69
Sailer I, Philipp A, Zembic A, Pjetursson BE, Hämmerle CH, Zwahlen M. A systematic review of the performance of ceramic and metal implant abutments supporting fixed implant reconstructions. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009; 20:4-31
Zembic A, Bösch A, Jung RE, Hämmerle CH, Sailer I. Five-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial comparing zirconia and titanium abutments supporting single-implant crowns in canine and posterior regions. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013; 24:384-390
van Brakel R, Meijer GJ, Verhoeven JW, Jansen J, de Putter C, Cune MS. Soft tissue response to zirconia and titanium implant abutments: an in vivo within-subject comparison. J Clin Periodontol. 2012; 39:995-1001
Zembic A, Kim S, Zwahlen M, Kelly JR. Systematic review of the survival rate and incidence of biologic, technical, and esthetic complications of single implant abutments supporting fixed prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29:99-116
Larsson C, Wennerberg A. The clinical success of zirconia-based crowns: a systematic review. Int J Prosthodont. 2014; 27:33-43
Burns DR, Unger JW, Coffey JP, Waldrop TC, Elswick RK Randomized, prospective, clinical evaluation of prosthodontic modalities for mandibular implant overdenture treatment. J Prosthet Dent. 2011; 106:12-22
Slot W, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, Huddleston Slater JJ, Meijer HJ. A systematic review of implant-supported maxillary overdentures after a mean observation period of at least 1 year. J Clin Periodontol. 2010; 37:98-110
Raghoebar GM, Meijer HJ, Slot W, Slater JJ, Vissink A. A systematic review of implant-supported overdentures in the edentulous maxilla, compared to the mandible: how many implants?. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2014; 7:191-201
Feine JS, Carlsson GE, Awad MA, Chehade A, Duncan WJ, Gizani S, Head T, Heydecke G, Lund JP, MacEntee M, Mericske-Stern R, Mojon P, Morais JA, Naert I, Payne AG, Penrod J, Stoker GT, Tawse-Smith A, Taylor TD, Thomason JM, Thomson WM, Wismeijer D. The McGill consensus statement on overdentures. Mandibular two-implant overdentures as first choice standard of care for edentulous patients. Gerodontology. 2002; 19:3-4
Thomason JM, Feine J, Exley C, Moynihan P, Müller F, Naert I, Ellis JS, Barclay C, Butterworth C, Scott B, Lynch C, Stewardson D, Smith P, Welfare R, Hyde P, McAndrew R, Fenlon M, Barclay S, Barker D. Mandibular two implant-supported overdentures as the first choice standard of care for edentulous patients--the York Consensus Statement. Br Dent J. 2009; 207:185-186
Rentsch-Kollar A, Huber S, Mericske-Stern R. Mandibular implant overdentures followed for over 10 years: patient compliance and prosthetic maintenance. Int J Prosthodont. 2010; 23:91-98
Cehreli MC, Karasoy D, Kokat AM, Akca K, Eckert SE. Systematic review of prosthetic maintenance requirements for implant-supported overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010; 25:163-180
Martin W, Lewis E, Nicol A. Local risk factors for implant therapy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009; 24:28-38
Salvi GE, Brägger U. Mechanical and technical risks in implant therapy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009; 24:69-85
Cochran DL, Schou S, Heitz-Mayfield LJ, Bornstein MM, Salvi GE, Martin WC. Consensus statements and recommended clinical procedures regarding risk factors in implant therapy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009; 24:86-89
Krennmair G, Krainhöfner M, Piehslinger E. The influence of bar design (round versus milled bar) on prosthodontic maintenance of mandibular overdentures supported by 4 implants: a 5-year prospective study. Int J Prosthodont. 2008; 21:514-520
Pjetursson BE, Asgeirsson AG, Zwahlen M, Sailer I. Improvements in implant dentistry over the last decade: comparison of survival and complication rates in older and newer publications. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29:308-324
Pjetursson BE, Lang NP. Prosthetic treatment planning on the basis of scientific evidence. J Oral Rehabil. 2008; 35:72-79

A guide to implant dentistry part 2: surgical and prosthodontic considerations

From Volume 46, Issue 6, June 2019 | Pages 514-523

Authors

Despoina Chatzistavrianou

DDS MFDS RCSEd, MClinDent Pro, MPros RCSEd

Specialist in Prosthodontics, Specialty Registrar in Restorative Dentistry, Birmingham Dental Hospital and University of Birmingham School of Dentistry, Birmingham Community Healthcare NHS Trust, Birmingham, UK

Articles by Despoina Chatzistavrianou

Paul HR Wilson

BSc(Hons), BDS(Glasg), MSc(Lond), FDS RCPS FDS(RestDent), DipDSed(Lond)

Consultant in Restorative Dentistry, Bristol Dental Hospital, Lower Maudlin, Bristol, BS1 2LY, UK

Articles by Paul HR Wilson

Philip Taylor

BDS(Ncle), MGDS(RCS Eng), MSc(Lond), MRD RCS(RCS Eng), FDS(RCS Edin)

Senior Lecturer and Honorary Consultant in Restorative Dentistry, The Royal London Dental Hospital and Queen Mary University of London, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK

Articles by Philip Taylor

Abstract

Implant rehabilitation is a successful treatment modality for the replacement of missing teeth, but careful treatment planning, restoratively-driven implant placement and individualized maintenance are prerequisites for success in order to control and minimize technical and biologic complications. The first part of the series focused on new patient assessment and pre-operative planning. The second part of the series will discuss the surgical and prosthodontic considerations and maintenance of implant-supported restorations.

CPD/Clinical Relevance: To provide the dental practitioner with an evidence-based overview regarding treatment planning, surgical and prosthodontic considerations and maintenance of implant-supported restorations.

Article

Replacement of missing teeth with implant-supported prostheses is a challenging process and each case presents different degrees of complexity and surgical, restorative and aesthetic risk factors.1, 2 Although implant reconstructions offer high survival rates, their complication rate and level of maintenance are high as well.3 The first part of the series focused on new patient assessment regarding general and local factors that affect the case complexity and pre-operative planning. The second part of the series will discuss the surgical and prosthodontic considerations and maintenance of implant-supported restorations, equally important factors to their long-term success.

Successful implant rehabilitation requires careful surgical manipulation which will take into consideration anatomic structures and will follow a strict surgical protocol regarding drill sequence and an aseptic technique.4 Each case will have a different degree of surgical complexity depending on the site (aesthetic versus non-aesthetic), the number of missing teeth and the soft and hard tissue deficiencies (Table 1).2

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:

What's included

  • Up to 2 free articles per month
  • New content available

Already have an account? Sign in here