provisional restoration
Recently Published Documents

Abstract Background The aim of this retrospective study was to document the long-term clinical efficacy of a surgical-prosthetic technique (the flat one-bridge technique) involving the immediate restoration of both postextraction and nonpostextraction implants supporting full-arch restorations. Methods Implants were placed by adapting the axis to the available bone. Flat definitive abutments were connected during surgery and never disconnected to compensate for eventual implant disparallelism. Bone grafting was performed when needed. The patients received a screw-retained provisional restoration within 48 h of surgery and a final screw-retained prosthesis within 1 year. Results Sixty-six patients received 494 implants distributed in 75 prostheses. The median follow-up was 86 months (range 82–168 months). Only three implants had failed at the last follow-up. Implant survival was 99.6%. Conclusion The flat one-bridge prosthetic protocol is a viable procedure with excellent long-term outcomes. No difference in clinical success could be observed between postextractive and nonpostextractive implants.

When taking the final impression for a three-unit fixed partial denture (FPD), the intaglio surface of the pontic of provisional restoration cannot be transferred accurately to that of definitive restoration. The intra- and extra-oral scanning (IEOS) technique, a method for accurately reproducing the submucosal morphology of the superstructure of an implant, has been reported using an intraoral scanner. In the present study, we evaluated the difference between the conventional impression method using impression material and the IEOS technique in reproducing the morphology of the surface of the pontic of a definitive FPD. There was a significant difference in the trueness of the intaglio surface morphology of the pontic between the conventional method and the IEOS technique; however, no significant difference in precision was observed. As a result, the intaglio surface of the pontic of the three-unit FPD could be transferred to definitive restorations more accurately with the IEOS technique than with the conventional method. These results suggest that the IEOS technique can duplicate the intaglio surface of the pontic more reproducibly to the definitive restorations compared with the conventional method.

Abstract Background: Aim of this retrospective study was to document the long-term clinical efficacy of a surgical-prosthetic technique (Flat-one-Bridge) involving immediate restoration of both post-extractive and non-post-extractive implants supporting full-arch restorations. Methods: Implants were placed adapting the axis to the available bone. Flat definitive abutments were connected at surgery and never disconnected in order to compensate for eventual implants dis-parallelism. Bone grafting was performed when needed. Patients received a screw-retained provisional restoration within 48 hours of surgery and a final screw-retained prosthesis within one year. Results: Sixty-six patients received 494 implants distributed in 75 prosthesis. The median follow-up was 86 months (range 82-168 months). Only three implants failed at the last follow-up. Implant survival was 99.6%. Conclusion: The Flat-one-Bridge prosthetic protocol is a viable procedure with excellent long-term outcomes. No difference could be observed between post-extractive and non post-extractive implants in terms of clinical success.

Currently, the gold standard materials of choice for dental implants are the commercially pure titanium. However, these materials may have suboptimal anterior esthetic outcome due to the dark grayish burnout. To enhance the esthetic outcomes, zirconium dioxide materials, with reported long-term success in medical uses and with its tooth-like color, was introduced as a dental implants material. This case report describes the fully guided planning and placement of one-piece zirconia implant replacing missing central incisor. A 21-years-old male patient, non-smoker in excellent general health, presented with a missing tooth #21. Straumann PURE® (4.1x10 mm) Ceramic implant was placed. Three months post-surgery, the soft tissues architecture has been achieved and stabilized, healing was satisfactory around the zirconia implant and provisional restoration. The final layered zirconia crown was fabricated. Two-step cementation technique was used to minimize the excess cement during final delivery of the crown. After delivery of the final restoration, the patient was followed up after 1, 3, 6, and 12 months.

Abstract Background All-on-4 concept allows an immediate restoration, which is frequently a provisional restoration (PR), and will be replaced by a definitive restoration (DR) a few months later. However, this approach involves much higher treatment efforts and costs, compared to a DR immediately after implantation. PRs were mostly incorporated in the introductory phase of the All-on-4 concept in our respective clinics. Today, PRs are only used for referred patients and bimaxillary restorations. The aim of the study was to investigate whether PRs and DRs have comparable success rates. Methods A total of 126 patients with 136 All-on-4 restorations supported by 544 implants were included in this retrospective cohort study. The observation period was 1 year. In 42 cases, a PR was placed initially and replaced by a DR 3 months later. In 94 cases, a DR was placed immediately. Biological, technical, and severe (loss of an implant or PR/DR) complications associated with PRs and DRs were compared. The absence of a serious complication was considered a success. Results A total of 27 patients were affected by 33 complications, 19 biological (2 PR and 17 DR) and 14 technical (6 in PR and 8 in DR) in the first 3 months. Eight patients had ten severe complications (1 PR and 9 DR). Severe complications were all implant losses. Implant survival rate was 98.2% (99.4% PR and 97.6 DR), and restoration survival rate was 94.4% (97.6% PR and 92.6% DR). Six out of the ten implant losses occurred in the posterior maxillae of male patients. After 3 months, ten complications occurred in six patients within 1 year. One of these complications was an implant loss in the posterior maxillae of a male patient. Conclusion PRs and DRs showed comparable complication rates during the observation period. Only in male patients did implant losses occur more frequently in the posterior maxilla.

The nature of immediate implant placement followed by an immediate restoration protocol makes it particularly suited to the anterior maxilla. In addition to saving treatment time and avoiding additional surgical procedures, this protocol has been reported to improve aesthetic outcomes by supporting the peri-implant tissues during the implant healing phase through the use of a provisional restoration. This case report documents the use of this protocol in a patient with a failing maxillary anterior tooth and reports on the soft and hard tissue changes over an observation period of 10 years. An implant was immediately placed after removal of a failing maxillary central incisor followed by the provision of a screw retained provisional crown on the same day. A definitive restoration was placed after a 3-month healing period. Not only did this protocol manage to maintain peri-implant bone levels over the 10-year follow-up period, excellent aesthetic outcomes and very limited soft tissue recession were observed with the use of this technique.