Single-tooth replacement: bridge vs. implant-supported restoration.
(1/35)
Options for restoring a single tooth include fixed partial denture, resin-bonded restoration and single-tooth implant. In this paper, we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of these methods and factors that must be considered when choosing between them for the replacement of a single tooth. Although in some cases a fixed partial denture is the most appropriate choice, implants have the advantage of allowing preservation of the integrity of sound teeth adjacent to the edentulous area. (+info)
Congenitally missing maxillary lateral incisors and orthodontic treatment considerations for the single-tooth implant.
(2/35)
Implant restorations have become a primary treatment option for the replacement of congenitally missing lateral incisors. The central incisor and canine often erupt in less than optimal positions adjacent to the edentulous lateral incisor space, and therefore preprosthetic orthodontic treatment is frequently required. Derotation of the central incisor and canine, space closure and correction of root proximities may be required to create appropriate space in which to place the implant and achieve an esthetic restoration. This paper discusses aspects of preprosthetic orthodontic diagnosis and treatment that need to be considered with implant restorations. (+info)
Esthetic option for the implant-supported single-tooth restoration -- treatment sequence with a ceramic abutment.
(3/35)
A single implant-supported restoration is one treatment alternative to consider for the replacement of a missing tooth. Technological advances in materials and machining have led to the development of a densely sintered aluminum oxide ceramic abutment, designed and machined using CAD/CAM technology. This manufacturing method improves management of the subgingival depth of the crown/abutment interface and enhances the esthetic qualities of the restoration. However, since this ceramic abutment has less mechanical resistance than metal abutments, its use should be confined to the restoration of incisors and premolars not subjected to excessive occlusal forces. (+info)
Molar restorations supported by 2 implants: an alternative to wide implants.
(4/35)
The single-tooth restoration has become one of the most widely used procedures in implant dentistry. Improvements to the abutment implant interface design, wider implant platforms and the increased use of cemented restorations have greatly enhanced this procedure. Nonetheless, limitations in the volume of underlying bone and heavy occlusal loads, with or without parafunctional habits, still contribute to occasional disappointments in restoration stability. The use of 2 implants to restore a molar has been shown to eliminate problems associated with bone volume and prosthetic stability. One of the most significant barriers to the widespread use of this concept has been the limitation of the size of implants and their associated prosthetic components. This paper presents the use of 2 implants to replace a single molar using implants and prosthetic components in the Astra Tech Dental Implant System. (+info)
A 5-year prospective study of implant-supported single-tooth replacements.
(5/35)
OBJECTIVE: Because osseointegration has been successful in the management of completely edentulous patients, it is tempting to extrapolate these results and infer the success of single-tooth replacement. Yet there are major clinical differences between edentulous and partially edentulous patients. This prospective study is a follow-up to one started at the University of Toronto in 1986. The purpose of this study was to continue longitudinal assessment of implant-supported single-tooth replacements. METHODS: The original study comprised 42 consecutively treated patients with a total of 49 implants. The patient group consisted of all University of Toronto patients treated with single Br nemark implants whose treatment had been completed more than 5 years previously (i.e., before 1994). No exclusion criteria applied. One implant was not osseointegrated at the time of stage 2 surgery, and 6 patients with reportedly successful osseointegrated implants were not available for recall. For the preparation of this report, 30 of the remaining 42 implants were assessed during recall examinations. Assessment of success was based on published criteria. In addition, soft-tissue appearance, implant immobility, occlusal contacts in centric occlusion and excursions, proximal contacts, tightness of crown and abutment screws, and patients' responses on satisfaction questionnaires were evaluated. RESULTS: The criteria defining success of treatment in implant prosthodontics were met by all 30 of the single-tooth implants, which had been in place for 5 or more years. Each implant was immobile, and each had a mean vertical bone reduction of less than 0.2 mm annually. CONCLUSION: Stable long-term results can be achieved with single Branemark implant-supported crowns. (+info)
A modified impression technique for accurate registration of peri-implant soft tissues.
(6/35)
Replacement of single missing teeth with an implant-supported restoration is recognized as a highly successful treatment. An impression technique for peri-implant soft-tissue replication in an anterior zone is described. The technique involves use of an interim restoration as an abutment for the final impression. This allows accurate duplication of the soft tissues and fabrication of a final restoration with the correct emergence profile. (+info)
Complications of mandibular molar replacement with a single implant: a case report.
(7/35)
This case report describes prosthodontic complications resulting from the surgical placement of a single implant and treatment following these complications. Both the surgical and prosthodontic procedures are described for the treatment of a 57-year-old man who had previously received a single implant for the replacement of a missing molar. Using 2 implants, 1 mesial and 1 distal to the previously placed single implant proved reliable. A logical treatment solution is to use 2 implants for the replacement of a single molar to avoid prosthodontic complications. (+info)
Single-unit implants versus conventional treatments for compromised teeth: a brief review of the evidence.
(8/35)
The goal of preserving the natural dentition has long provided the foundation for clinical decision making in dentistry. Current trends in implant dentistry have weakened this paradigm as many practitioners have moved quickly to adopt implant dentistry as a new standard of care; however, the rapidity of this shift is a cause for concern among others. Many short-term studies have reported favorable data supporting the growth of single-unit implant dentistry, but the lack of standardized outcome evaluations and broadly conceived dimensions of performance makes it difficult to compare these reports. Thus, even with the exciting new treatment options implant dentistry offers patients and practitioners, all due consideration should first be given to treatments aimed at preserving and restoring compromised teeth before pursuing extraction and replacement. This article examines this premise from five perspectives: form, function, survival, management of complications, and quality of life. (+info)