1. Introduction

Implant-supported restorations are a well-recognized esthetic and functional solution for partially edentulous patients [1][2]. In the interim phase of treatment, temporary restorations are required to restore gingival health [2][3], while providing esthetic and functional benefits to the patient [1]. Despite these advantages, the use of temporaries present a challenging situation [4]. With high potential for clinical failure [2][5][6] and a demand for optimal esthetics [7], considerable scientific interest has been focused on refining the components and processes for predictable implant temporaries [8].

Failure of implant-supported restorations may be directly related to the component design of implant temporaries [9]. Cho and colleagues [10] reported that many temporary prostheses applied external stressors that initiated soft-tissue inflammation and inhibited osseointegration. Poorly fitted removable partial dentures can induce undesired forces and resultant stresses in the healing cap and/or implant body [11]. These undesired stresses can eventually lead to failure of the implant-supported restorations [12]. Therefore, further research focused on temporary abutment designs that minimize these forces is required.

A novel abutment and process for temporization (U.S. Patent No. 12/668832) has been developed (Research Driven, Ontario, Canada) that addresses the functional, aesthetic, and financial requirements of temporary prosthesis and may be considered as an alternative option.

2. Link Reference






  1. Lata J and Parmar M. Placement of single tooth implant in the healed socket with immediate temporization: clinical study. Contemp. Clin. Dent. 2012;3(4):412-415.
  2. Ryu HS, Namgung C, Lee JH, and Lim YJ. The influence of thread geometry on implant osseointegration under immediate loading: A li- terature review. J. Adv. Prosthodont. 2014;6:547-554.
  3. Huang HL, Tsai MT, Su KC, Li YF, Hsu JT, Chang CH et al. Re- lation between initial implant stability quotient and bone-implant con- tact percentage: An in vitro model study. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. Med. Pathol. 2013;116(5):356-361.
  4. Weber, HP, Sing, T. Provisional Restorations in Implant Dentistry: Considerations for balancing esthetics and tissue healing in the maxi- llary anterior. Inside Dentistry. 2014;10(11).
  5. Goodacre CJ, Bernal G, Rungcharassaeng K and Kan JY. Clinical complications with implants and implant prostheses. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2003;90(2):121-132.
  6. Fugazzotto PA. Success and failure rates of osseointegrated im- plants in function in regenerated bone for 72 to 133 months. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants. 2005;20(1):77-83.
  7. Mijiritsky E, Mardinger O, Mazor Z, and Chaushu G. Immediate provisionalization of single-tooth implants in fresh-extraction sites at the maxillary esthetic zone: Up to 6 years of follow-up. Implant Dent. 2009;18(4):326-333.
  8. Joda T, Ferrari M and Braegger U. A digital approach for one-step formation of the supra-implant emergence profile with an individuali- zed CAD/CAM healing abutment. J. Pros. Res. 2016;60(3):220-223. 9. Magne P, Silva M, Oderich E, Boff LL, Enciso R. Damping be- haviour of implant supported restorations. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2013;24(2):143-8.
  9. Cho SC, Shetty S, Froum S, Elian N, and Tarnow D. Fixed and removable provisional options for patients undergoing implant treat- ment. Compendium. 2007;28(11):604-609.
  10. Bural C, Buzbas B, Ozatik S, Bayraktar G and Emes, Y. Distal extension mandibular removable partial denture with implant support. Eur. J. Dent. 2016;10(4):566-570.
  11. Levin L. Dealing with dental implant failures. J. Appl. Oral Sci. 2008;16(3):171-175.
  12. Kalman L and Estafanos L. Implant Provisionals Utilizing a No- vel Abutment: Assessing Quality, Efficiency and Stability Int. J. New Tech. Eng. 2017;4(1):37-47.
View More