Article

Provisional implants for immediate restoration of partially edentulous jaws: a clinical study.

Department of Prosthodontics, University of Vienna, Austria.
The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants (Impact Factor: 1.91). 01/2008; 23(4):717-25.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of provisional implants, which can provide patients with provisional fixed partial dentures during the healing time of augmentation procedures and/or during the osseointegration period of definitive implants until delivery of the definitive prosthesis.
Thirty-one patients were consecutively included in the study. Eighteen patients (group A, primary simultaneous group) were initially treated simultaneously with provisional and definitive implants and provided with 18 interim fixed partial dentures. Thirteen patients (group B) received provisional implants in a staggered procedure. In the first stage of group B patients (augmentation phase), provisional implants were placed to bridge the augmentation phase and for anchoring 13 interim fixed partial dentures. In the second stage (secondary simultaneous group), patients of group B received provisional implants to bridge the osseointegration phase for simultaneously placed definitive implants by further use of 13 interim fixed partial dentures. All patients were followed from provisional implant and definitive implant placement to delivery of the definitive prosthesis. Loss of provisional implants and interim fixed partial dentures was noted, and stability of provisional implants was evaluated using the Periotest device. The procedures of immediate rehabilitation with fixed partial dentures using provisional implants were subjectively rated by patients with regard to satisfaction, treatment period, and acceptance.
In 31 patients, 44 provisional fixed partial dentures were supported by 98 provisional implants. No provisional implant loss in group A or group B-second stage was observed. Only 3 (3%) provisional implants were lost in group B-first stage during the augmentation phase. Incidence (90.8% versus 9.2%) and stability (Periotest values: 8.6 +/- 3.9 versus 4.8 +/- 2.7) of provisional implants differed significantly between maxilla and mandible (P < .01). All interim fixed partial dentures (n = 44) remained in place for the intended time period but in 3 cases with provisional implant loss they were shortened. No definitive implant loss (n = 94, survival: 100%) and especially no implant loss in cases of maxillary sinus augmentation was seen. The items rated showed high satisfaction and good acceptance of the intensive surgical and prosthodontic program.
This clinical review showed that (1) provisional implants can successfully provide patients with a fixed partial denture for immediate rehabilitation to bridge the osseointegration or augmentation phase, even in cases with an initially compromised bone situation and (2) although treatment is elaborate, the selected patients decided on a fixed interim rehabilitation with provisional implants rather than on a removable solution.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
62 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Reconstruction of the atrophic maxilla for dental implant placement has many unique considerations. There are several methods available to augment the atrophic maxilla. Of these, autogenous bone grafting offers a well-proven predictable method for ridge augmentation and defect repair for dental implant placement. There are several advantages of using autogenous bone grafts. This article primarily focuses on the use of autogenous onlay bone grafts to reconstruct the atrophic maxilla.
    Oral and maxillofacial surgery clinics of North America 05/2011; 23(2):229-38, v.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this present study was to evaluate the success of immediately loaded transitional implants and to identify possible influential factors. A total of 64 patients were recruited in a private specialist implant practice. Two different implant systems were evaluated (IPI, Nobel Biocare, Sweden; I-Plant, Unor, Switzerland). Primary stability, survival rate, gender, location, the type of prosthetic restoration and the tooth status of the opposite jaw were analysed using Kaplan-Meier or Pearson Chi-Square test. A total of 254 transitional implants were placed, thereof 216 were IPI implants and 38 I-Plant implants. The overall observation period ranged between 2 and 426 days. The results demonstrated a survival rate of 82·4% for the IPI system and 84·2% for the I-Plant system. None of the transitional implants with a good primary stability were lost during the observation period. The primary stability showed significant influence on the implant survival. There was no significant difference in survival of the implants between the two implant systems. Neither the gender, the kind of superstructure, the location of the implant, the tooth status of the opposing jaw or the immediate prosthetic superstructure had an influence on the survival of the implants. Both implant systems proved to be sufficient alternatives for the support of provisional restorations.
    Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 11/2010; 38(6):447-53. · 2.34 Impact Factor