RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: This study was performed to evaluate the performance of a contemporary dental implant. Assessments were made regarding implant survival and radiographic bone changes from surgical placement to subsequent time points. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-five patients received 204 dental implants. One hundred and seventy-six implants were placed into healed ridges and 28 implants were inserted into fresh extraction sockets. Implant survival percentages and mean data pertaining to radiographic proximal bone loss for 1 randomly selected implant per patient are presented. RESULTS: The survival rates for implants placed into healed ridges and fresh extraction sockets were 98.6% and 96.4%, respectively. The overall survival rate for all implants in the 75 patients was 99.0%. With respect to proximal bone levels, mesial and distal bone loss from surgical placement to 12 months was 0.96 mm mesially and 0.83 mm distally. From 24 to 36 months follow-up, the mesial and distal bone changes were 0.16 mm and 0.19 mm, respectively. Up to 36 months after implants were placed into fresh extraction sockets, the mean distance from the implant-abutment interface to the first bone to implant contact was 1.01 mm mesially and 1.10 mm distally. CONCLUSION: With respect to the time frame of the study, assessed parameters were similar to other implant systems that are currently used.
Assuntos
Processo Alveolar/diagnóstico por imagem , Implantes Dentários , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Perda do Osso Alveolar/diagnóstico por imagem , Perda do Osso Alveolar/etiologia , Processo Alveolar/cirurgia , Dente Suporte , Implantação Dentária Endóssea/métodos , Planejamento de Prótese Dentária , Prótese Dentária Fixada por Implante , Falha de Restauração Dentária , Feminino , Seguimentos , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Osseointegração/fisiologia , Radiografia Interproximal , Propriedades de Superfície , Análise de Sobrevida , Extração Dentária , Alvéolo Dental/cirurgia , Cicatrização/fisiologiaRESUMO
Serial extraction protocol (SEP) is a clinical technique that facilitates using natural tooth abutments to support a fixed interim resin prosthesis, while inserting a sufficient number of implants to retain a definitive fixed prosthesis. A Class 1 protocol allows all necessary implants to be placed during one surgical appointment, while a Class 2 protocol requires two or more rounds of implant installation to achieve sufficient support for a definitive fixed prosthesis. The SEP methodology can be used to restore full and partially edentulous dentitions. This article addresses rehabilitation of partial arches using an SEP protocol.
Assuntos
Dente Suporte , Implantes Dentários , Planejamento de Dentadura , Extração Dentária/métodos , Protocolos Clínicos , Dente Suporte/efeitos adversos , Implantação Dentária Endóssea/efeitos adversos , Implantes Dentários/efeitos adversos , Planejamento de Prótese Dentária , Restauração Dentária Permanente , Prótese Parcial Fixa , Prótese Parcial Temporária , Estética Dentária , Humanos , Arcada Parcialmente Edêntula/reabilitação , Arcada Parcialmente Edêntula/cirurgia , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Pré-Protéticos Bucais , Planejamento de Assistência ao Paciente , Tomografia Computadorizada por Raios X , Preparo Prostodôntico do Dente , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
PURPOSE: It is believed that maxillary dental implants must be splinted when used to retain removable overdenture prostheses in order to maintain osseointegration. This paper presents clinical cases to demonstrate that contemporary implants can function in an unsplinted manner to retain maxillary removable overdentures with partial palatal coverage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five consecutive patients were treated using a specific surgical and prosthodontic protocol. Twenty-five textured-surface implants were placed to retain overdenture prostheses in five patients, with a minimum of 4 implants per patient. These patients were followed for 12 to 48 months postloading. RESULTS: To date, none of the implants have lost osseointegration, and radiographic marginal bone levels are stable. Patients have been able to maintain soft tissue health around the unsplinted implants. The patients have verbally indicated that they are comfortable and that their maxillary overdentures function well. CONCLUSION: This preliminary report presents 5 consecutive cases in which unsplinted implants maintained osseointegration when used to retain removable overdenture prostheses with limited palatal coverage. It appears that unsplinted maxillary implants can be used to retain a maxillary overdenture.