Digital Workflow for Implant Rehabilitation with Double Full-Arch Monolithic Zirconia Prostheses.
CAD/CAM
Monolithic zirconia
dental implants
digital dentistry
digital workflow
double-arch implant rehabilitation
zirconia prosthesis
Journal
Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists
ISSN: 1532-849X
Titre abrégé: J Prosthodont
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9301275
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2020
Jul 2020
Historique:
revised:
14
03
2020
accepted:
16
03
2020
pubmed:
19
3
2020
medline:
4
8
2020
entrez:
19
3
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The purpose of the present report is to illustrate a proof-of-concept protocol with the double digital scanning (DDS) technique for complete digital workflow in double full-arch implant rehabilitation. Two patients (4 restored arches) presented with hopeless dentitions and they were treated with a 4-appointment prosthodontic protocol and monolithic zirconia prostheses implementing a complete digital workflow. The outcomes are presented after clinical and radiographic observation for 2 years.
Substances chimiques
Dental Implants
0
Zirconium
C6V6S92N3C
zirconium oxide
S38N85C5G0
Types de publication
Case Reports
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
460-465Informations de copyright
© 2020 by the American College of Prosthodontists.
Références
Chochlidakis KM, Papaspyridakos P, Geminiani A, et al: Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2016;116:184-190
Papaspyridakos P, Chen YW, Gonzalez-Gusmao I, et al: Complete digital workflow in prosthesis prototype fabrication for complete-arch implant rehabilitation: a technique. J Prosthet Dent 2019;122:189-192
Vandenweghe S, Vervack V, Dierens M, et al: Accuracy of digital impressions of multiple dental implants: an in-vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28:648-653
Papaspyridakos P, Rajput N, Kudara Y, et al: Digital workflow for fixed implant rehabilitation of an extremely atrophic edentulous mandible in three appointments. J Esthet Restor Dent 2017;29:178-188
Papaspyridakos P, Kang K, DeFuria C, et al: Digital workflow in full-arch implant rehabilitation with segmented minimally veneered monolithic zirconia fixed dental prostheses: 2-year clinical follow-up. J Esthet Restor Dent 2018;30: 1-18
Pesce P, Pera F, Setti P, et al: Precision and accuracy of a digital impression scanner in full-arch implant rehabilitation. Int J Prosthodont 2018;31:171-175
Amin S, Weber HP, Finkelman M, et al: Digital versus conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28:1360-67
Di Fiore A, Meneghello R, Graiff L, et al: Full arch digital scanning systems performances for implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: a comparative study of 8 intraoral scanners. J Prosthodont Res 2019;63:396-403
Papaspyridakos P, Gallucci GO, Chen CJ, et al: Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27:465-72
Maló P, Araújo Nobre MD, Lopes A, et al: Double full-arch versus single full-arch, four implant-supported rehabilitations: a retrospective, 5-year cohort study. J Prosthodont 2015;24:263-70
Malo P, de Araújo Nobre M, Borges J, etal: Retrievable metal ceramic implant-supported fixed prostheses with milled titanium frameworks and all-ceramic crowns: retrospective clinical study with up to 10 years of follow-up. J Prosthodont 2012;21:256-264
Chochlidakis K, Einarsdottir E, Tsigarida A, etal: Survival rates and prosthetic complications of implant fixed complete dental prostheses: an up to 5-year retrospective study. J Prosthet Dent. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.11.022
Papaspyridakos P, Bordin TB, Kim YJ, et al: Technical complications and prosthesis survival rates with implant-supported fixed complete dental prostheses: a retrospective study with 1- to 12-year follow-up. J Prosthodont 2020;29:3-11
Papaspyridakos P, Bordin TB, Natto ZS, et al: Double full-arch fixed implant-supported prostheses: outcomes and complications after a mean follow-up of 5 years. J Prosthodont 2019;28:387-397
Papaspyridakos P, Bordin TB, Natto ZS, et al: Complications and survival rates of 55 metal-ceramic implant-supported fixed complete-arch prostheses: a cohort study with mean 5-year follow-up. J Prosthet Dent 2019;122:441-449
Caramês J, Marques D, Malta Barbosa J, et al: Full-arch implant-supported rehabilitations: a prospective study comparing porcelain veneered zirconia frameworks to monolithic zirconia. Clin Oral Implants Res 2019;30:68-78
Rojas Vizcaya F: Retrospective 2- to 7-year follow-up study of 20 double full-arch implant-supported monolithic zirconia fixed prostheses: measurements and recommendations for optimal design. J Prosthodont 2018;27:501-508
Gonzalez J, Triplett RG: Complications and clinical considerations of the implant-retained zirconia complete-arch prosthesis with various opposing dentitions. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017;32:864-869
Bidra AS, Agar JR, Parel SM: Management of patients with excessive gingival display for maxillary complete arch fixed implant-supported prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2012;108:324-31
Bidra AS: Three-dimensional esthetic analysis in treatment planning for implant-supported fixed prosthesis in the edentulous maxilla: review of the esthetics literature. J Esthet Restor Dent 2011;23:219-36
Drago CJ, Caswell CW: Prosthodontic rehabilitation of patients with Class II malocclusions. J Prosthet Dent 1990;64:435-45
Luraschi J, Schimmel M, Bernard JP, et al: Mechanosensation and maximum bite force in edentulous patients rehabilitated with bimaxillary implant-supported fixed dental prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23:577-83
Bidra AS: Technique for systematic bone reduction for fixed implant-supported prosthesis in the edentulous maxilla. J Prosthet Dent 2015;113:520-523
Zitzmann NU, Marinello CP: Treatment plan for restoring the edentulous maxilla with implant-supported restorations: removable overdenture versus fixed partial denture design. J Prosthet Dent 1999;82:188-196
Pollini A, Goldberg J, Mitrani R, et al: The Lip-Tooth-Ridge classification: a guidepost for edentulous maxillary arches. Diagnosis, risk assessment, and implant treatment indications. Int J Periodont Restorat Dent 2017;37:835-841
Salama MA, Pozzi A, Clark WA, et al: The “Scalloped Guide”: a proof-of-concept technique for a digitally streamlined, pink-free full-arch implant protocol. Int J Periodont Restorat Dent 2018;38:791-798
Jemt T: In vivo measurements of precision of fit involving implant-supported prostheses in the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:151-158
Jemt T, Book K: Prosthesis misfit and marginal bone loss in edentulous implant patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:620-625
Cappare P, Sannino G, Minoli M, et al: Conventional versus digital impressions for full arch screw-retained maxillary rehabilitations: a randomized clinical trial. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019;16:E829
Peñarrocha-Diago M, Balaguer-Martí JC, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, et al: A combined digital and stereophotogrammetric technique for rehabilitation with immediate loading of complete-arch, implant-supported prostheses: a randomized controlled pilot clinical trial. J Prosthet Dent 2017;118:596-603
Monaco C, Ragazzini N, Scheda L, et al: A fully digital approach to replicate functional and aesthetic parameters in implant-supported full-arch rehabilitation. J Prosthodont Res 2018;62:383-385
Gherlone E, Capparé P, Vinci R, et al: Conventional versus digital impressions for “All-on-Four” restorations. Int J Maxillofac Implants 2016;31:324-330
Spies BC, Witkowski S, Vach K, etal: Clinical and patient-reported outcomes of zirconia-based implant fixed dental prostheses: results of a prospective case series 5 years after implant placement. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29:91-99