Overview

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

Publication_1

https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/3dp.2019.0023

Publication_2

http://www.medicinaoral.com/medoralfree01/aop/57389.pdf

References

  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