			Home About us Contact

Implant-supported Restorations (implant-supported + restoration)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Medical Sciences	100%

Selected Abstracts

The Marius Implant Bridge: Surgical and Prosthetic Rehabilitation for the Completely Edentulous Upper Jaw with Moderate to Severe Resorption: A 5-Year Retrospective Clinical Study

CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, Issue 2 2002
Yvan Fortin DDS
ABSTRACT Background: Patients seeking replacement of their upper denture with an implant-supported restoration are most interested in a fixed restoration. Accompanying the loss of supporting alveolar structure due to resorption is the necessity for lip support, often provided by a denture flange. Attempts to provide a fixed restoration can result in compromises to oral hygiene based on designs with ridge laps. An alternative has been an overdenture prosthesis, which provides lip support but has extensions on to the palate and considerations of patient acceptance. The Marius bridge was developed as a fixed bridge alternative offering lip support that is removable by the patient for hygiene purposes, with no palatal extension beyond normal crown-alveolar contours. Purpose: Implant-supported restorative treatment of completely edentulous upper jaws, as an alternative to a complete denture, is frequently an elective preference, and it requires significant patient acceptance beyond the functional improvement of chewing. Patients with moderate to severe bone resorption and thin ridges present additional challenges for adequate bone volume and soft-tissue contours. The purpose of this investigation was to develop a surgical and prosthetic implant treatment protocol for completely edentulous maxillae in which optimal lip support and phonetics is achieved in combination with substantial implant anchorage without bone grafting. Materials and Methods: The Marius bridge is a complete-arch, double-structure prosthesis for maxillae that is removable by the patient for oral hygiene. The first 45 consecutive patients treated by one person (YF) in one center with this concept are reported, with 245 implants followed for up to 5 years after prostheses connection. Results: The cumulative fixture survival rate for this 5-year retrospective clinical study was 97%. Five fixtures failed before loading, in five different patients, and two fixtures in the same patient failed at the 3-year follow-up visit. None of the bridges failed, giving a prostheses survival rate of 100%. The complications were few and mainly prosthetic: nine incidences of attachment component complications, one mesobar fracture, and three reports of gingivitis. All complications were solved or repaired immediately, with minimal or no interruption of prostheses use. Conclusions: Satisfactory medium-term results of survival and patient satisfaction show that the Marius bridge can be recommended for implant dentistry. The technique may reduce the need for grafting, because it allows for longer implants to be placed with improved bone anchorage and prostheses support. [source]

Analysis of load transfer and stress distribution by splinted and unsplinted implant-supported fixed cemented restorations

JOURNAL OF ORAL REHABILITATION, Issue 9 2010
J. NISSAN
Summary, Controversy remains over the rehabilitation of implant-supported restorations regarding the need to splint adjacent implant-supported crowns. This study compared the effects of simulated occlusal loading of three implants restored with cemented crowns, splinted versus unsplinted. Three adjacent screw-shaped implants were passively inserted into three holes drilled in a photo-elastic model. Two combinations of cemented restorations were fabricated; three adjacent unsplinted and three adjacent splinted crowns. Strain gauges were connected to the implant necks and to the margins of the overlaying crowns. Fifteen axial static loads of 20-kg loadings were carried out right after each other via a custom-built loading apparatus. Strain gauges located on the implant neck supporting splinted restoration demonstrated significantly (P < 0·001) more strain (sum of strains = 3348·54 microstrain) compared with the single crowns (sum of strains = 988·57 microstrain). In contrast, significantly (P < 0·001) more strain was recorded on the strain gauges located on the restoration margins of the single crowns (sum of strains = 756·32 microstrain) when compared with splinted restorations (sum of strains = 186·12 microstrain). The concept of splinting adjacent implants to decrease loading of the supporting structures may require re-evaluation. The clinical relevance of these findings needs further investigation. [source]

Chewing side preference as a type of hemispheric laterality

JOURNAL OF ORAL REHABILITATION, Issue 5 2004
J. Nissan
summary, Chewing side preference is a factor that could effect prosthodontic treatment. The purpose of this study was to determine whether chewing side was another type of hemispheric lateralization comparable with footedness, handedness, eyedness and earedness. Chewing side preference was tested in 189 subjects of whom 84 were partially edentulous, 98 had a full compliment of dental units (81 included implant-supported restoration restoring the missing teeth and 17 with fully intact dentitions), and seven were fully edentulous, restored with complete dentures. Laterality tests were carried out for the first cycle of mastication, handedness, footedness, earedness and eyedness and patient questionnaire. Most patients preferred chewing on the right side (78,3%) and were right sided. Chewing side preference correlated with other tested hemispherical lateralities. Missing teeth, occlusion type, lateral guidance, gender, implant-supported restorations and complete dentures do not affect the side preference for chewing. This presents a strong argument that chewing side preference is centrally controlled and provides food for thought regarding its significance in prosthodontics. [source]

Oral implant restoration for enhanced oral function

CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL PHARMACOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY, Issue 1-2 2005
Patrick J Henry
SUMMARY 1.,The present paper reviews the clinical applications of implant-anchored restorations replacing teeth and defects of the craniofacial skeleton resultant from congenital, traumatic and surgical tissue loss. 2.,Different categories of tooth and tissue loss were treated in controlled multicentre prospective clinical trials. More recent developments have been the subject of limited pilot studies. 3.,Long-term results and meta-analysis reviews have shown that osseointegrated implant-supported restorations were at least equal to, and in some applications superior to, traditional treatment methods. 4.,Based on the outcome of a 30 year research and development programme and validation in numerous clinical trials, osseointegrated implant dental rehabilitation has become a viable treatment alternative for missing teeth and, for some applications, is considered to be a standard of care. [source]