J Korean Acad Prosthodont.  2017 Apr;55(2):180-186. 10.4047/jkap.2017.55.2.180.

Implant supported prosthetic rehabilitation of severely atrophic mandible with fixed detachable prosthesis

• Lee HJ
• Lim YJ
• Kwon HB
• Kim MJ

• KMID: 2377187
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2017.55.2.180

Abstract

Implant supported prostheses have improved the quality of lives of totally edentulous patients. However, there are some limitations on the number of implants related to the residual bone level or the economic concern and so on. In this situation, applying fixed detachable prosthesis with bilateral cantilevers can be considered. This clinical report describes implant supported prosthetic rehabilitation of a patient with severe bone resorption. The patient was satisfied and felt comfortable with upper complete denture and lower fixed detachable prosthesis.

Keyword

Implant; Distal cantilever; Fixed detachable prosthesis

MeSH Terms

Bone Resorption
Denture, Complete
Humans
Mandible*
Prostheses and Implants*
Rehabilitation*

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1. Initial intraoral photographs. (A) Upper occlusal view, (B) Frontal view, (C) Lower occlusal view.

• 

  Fig. 2. Panoramic radiograph at first visit.

• 

  Fig. 3. Surgical guide was fabricated for the computer-guided implant surgery.

• 

  Fig. 4. Cantilever prosthesis was designed according to the guidelines related to cantilever length and A-P spread.

• 

  Fig. 5. Maxillary complete denture and mandibular fixed provisional prosthesis were delivered.

• 

  Fig. 6. Titanium-milled framework was fabricated by CAD/CAM system. (A) scanned image (B) titanium-milled framework (C) zirconia-based suprastructures (D) definitive prosthesis.

• 

  Fig. 7. Maxillary posterior artificial teeth were modified to have gold occlusal surfaces by conventional lost-wax technique. Casted prostheses were cemented with resin cement. (A) tooth preparation for gold onlay (B) wax-up state.

• 

  Fig. 8. Esthetics and function were restored with the definitive prostheses. (A) Upper occlusal view, (B) Lateral view (right), (C) Frontal view, (D) Lateral view (left), (E) Lower occlusal view, (F) Panoramic radiograph.

• 

  Fig. 9. Maintenance care was performed periodically.

Reference

1.Allen PF., McMillan AS. A longitudinal study of quality of life outcomes in older adults requesting implant prostheses and complete removable dentures. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003. 14:173–9.

2.Heydecke G., Boudrias P., Awad MA., De Albuquerque RF., Lund JP., Feine JS. Within-subject comparisons of maxillary fixed and removable implant prostheses: Patient satisfaction and choice of prosthesis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003. 14:125–30.

3.Jemt T., Lindén B. Fixed implant-supported prostheses with welded titanium frameworks. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1992. 12:177–84.

4.Rangert B., Jemt T., Jörneus L. Forces and moments on Branemark implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1989. 4:241–7.

5.Zitzmann NU., Marinello CP. A review of clinical and technical considerations for fixed and removable implant prostheses in the edentulous mandible. Int J Prosthodont. 2002. 15:65–72.

6.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. 82:188–96.

7.Gallucci GO., Doughtie CB., Hwang JW., Fiorellini JP., Weber HP. Five-year results of fixed implant-supported rehabilitations with distal cantilevers for the edentulous mandible. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009. 20:601–7.

8.Ekelund JA., Lindquist LW., Carlsson GE., Jemt T. Implant treatment in the edentulous mandible: a prospective study on Brånemark system implants over more than 20 years. Int J Prosthodont. 2003. 16:602–8.

9.Kwon T., Bain PA., Levin L. Systematic review of short- (5-10 years) and long-term (10 years or more) survival and success of full-arch fixed dental hybrid prostheses and supporting implants. J Dent. 2014. 42:1228–41.

10.Shackleton JL., Carr L., Slabbert JC., Becker PJ. Survival of fixed implant-supported prostheses related to cantilever lengths. J Prosthet Dent. 1994. 71:23–6.

11.English CE. Critical A-P spread. Implant Soc. 1990. 1:2–3.

12.Jemt T. Three-dimensional distortion of gold alloy castings and welded titanium frameworks. Measurements of the precision of fit between completed implant prostheses and the master casts in routine edentulous situations. J Oral Rehabil. 1995. 22:557–64.

13.Abduo J. Fit of CAD/CAM implant frameworks: a comprehensive review. J Oral Implantol. 2014. 40:758–66.

14.O ¨rtorp A., Jemt T. CNC-milled titanium frameworks supported by implants in the edentulous jaw: a 10-year comparative clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012. 14:88–99.

15.Salvi GE., Zitzmann NU. The effects of anti-infective preventive measures on the occurrence of biologic implant complications and implant loss: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014. 29:292–307.

16.White SN., Lewis SG. Framework design for bone-anchored fixed prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 1992. 67:264–8.