Advertisement

Implant Provisionalization: The Key to Definitive Aesthetic Success

  • Edward Dwayne KarateewEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Developing implant aesthetics can be elusive to many clinicians. Too often we see practitioners jumping from the implant uncovery to the definitive restoration, only to be questioned by themselves, the patient or their referring colleague: ‘why does it not look correct’ or ‘why does it not feel right when I bite?’ There is no doubt that the fabrication of a provisional implant-supported restoration is a costly procedure both in clinical time and additional cost to the patient. However, when it is avoided, for any reason, there often are complications with the final prosthesis. One must think of the provisional restoration as the prototype from which the definitive restoration evolves; ideally the only difference being is the material from which each is fabricated. Aesthetics and function are always established in this relatively inexpensive plastic material prior to the investment of time and effort being put into the definitive restoration.

Keywords

Implant aesthetics Implant provisional Implant temporary Provisionalization Temporization MAC ZAC Gingiva Restoration Implant-abutment interface Acrylic 

References

  1. Abrahamson I, Berglundh T, Lindhe J (1997) The mucosal barrier following abutment dis/reconnection. An experimental study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol 24(8):568–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Juboori MJ, Bin Abdulrahaman S, Jassan A (2012) Comparison of flapless and conventional flap and the effect on crestal bone resorption during a 12-week healing period. Dent Implantol Updat 23(2):9–16Google Scholar
  3. Al-Nsour MM, Chan HL, Wang HL (2012) Effect of the platform- switching technique on preservation of peri-implant marginal bone: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 27(1):138–145Google Scholar
  4. Annibali S, Bignozzi I, Cristalli MP, Graziani F, La Monaca G, Polimeni A (2012) Peri-implant marginal bone level: a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing platform switching versus conventionally restored implants. J Clin Periodontal 30(11):1097–1113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Block MS, Mercante DE, Lirette D, Mohamed W, Ryser M, Castellon P (2009) Prospective evaluation of immediate and delayed provisional single tooth restorations. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 67(11 Suppl):89–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Broggini N, McManus LM, Hermann JS, Medina R, Schenk RK, Buser D, Cochran DL (2006) Peri- implant inflammation defined by the implant-abutment interface. J Dent Res 85(5):473–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buser D, Chappuis V, Bornstein MM, Wittneben JG, Frei M, Belser UC (2013) Long-term stability of contour augmentation with early implant placement following single tooth extraction in the esthetic zone: a prospective, cross-sectional study in 41 patients with a 5- to 9-year follow-up. J Periodontol 84(11):1517–1527Google Scholar
  8. Chang CL, Chen CS, Hsu ML (2010) Biomechanical effect of platform switching in implant dentistry: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 25(2):295–304PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cochran D, Mau LP, Higginbottom F et al (2013) Soft and hard tissue histologic dimensions around dental implants in the canine restored with smaller-diameter abutments: a paradigm shift in peri-implant biology. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 28:494–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cumbo C, Marigo L, Somma F, La Torre G, Minciacchi I, D’Addona A (2013) Implant platform switching concept: a literature review. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 17(3):392–397PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Degiudi M, Nardi D, Piattelli A (2011) One abutment at one time: non-removal of an immediate abutment and its effect on bone healing around subcrestal tapered implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 22(11):1303–1307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Degiudi M, Piattelli A, Gehrke P, Felice P, Carinci F (2006) Five-year outcome of 111 immediate nonfunctional single restorations. J Oral Implantol 32(6):277–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Degiudi M, Piattelli A, Shibli JA, Strocchi R, Iezzi G (2009) Bone formation around a dental implant with a platform switching and another with a tissue care connection: a histologic and histomorphometric evaluation in man. Titanium 1(1):8–15Google Scholar
  14. Donovan R, Fetner A, Koutouzis T, Lundgren T (2010) Crestal bone changes around implants with reduced abutment diameter placed non-submerged and at subcrestal positions: a 1-year radiographic evaluation. J Periodontol 81(3):428–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Elian N, Bloom M, Dard M, Cho SC, Trushkowsky RD, Tarnow D (2014) Radiological and micro-computed tomography analysis of the bone at dental implants inserted 2, 3 and 4 mm apart in a mining model with platform switching incorporated. Clin Oral Implants Res 25(2):22–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Feitosa PP, de Lima AB, Silva-Concilio LR, Brandt WC, Neves AC (2013) Stability of external and internal implant connections after a fatigue test. Eur J Dent 7:267–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gargiolo AW, Wentz FM, Orban B (1961) Dimensions and relations of the dentogingival junction in humans. J Periodontol 32:261–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grütter L, Belser UC (2009) Implant loading protocols for the partially edentulous esthetic zone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 24 Suppl:169–179PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hartman GA, Cochran DL (2004) Initial implant position determines the magnitude of crestal bone remodeling. J Periodontol 75:572–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hermann JS, Cochran DL, Nummikoski PV, Buser D (1997) Crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A radiographic evaluation of unloaded non-submerged and submerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 68:1117–1130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hermann JS, Schoolfield JD, Nummikoski PV, Buser D, Schenk RK, Cochran DL (2001) Crestal bone changes around titanium implants: a methodologic study comparing linear radiographic with histometric measurements. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 16(4):475–485PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Jansen VK, Conrads G, Richter EJ (1997) Microbial leakage and marginal fit of the implant-abutment interface. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 12:527–540PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Jeong SM, Choi BH, Li J, Kin HS, Ko CY, Jung JH, Lee HJ, Lee SH, Engelke W (2007) Flapless implant surgery: an experimental study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 104(1):24–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Karateew ED (2014) Mac and Zac: clinical protocols for predictable implant aesthetics. Dentistry Today 33(9):90–98Google Scholar
  25. Koutouzis T, Wallet S, Calderon N, Lindgren T (2011) Bacterial colonization of the implant-abutment interface using an in vitro dynamic loading model. J Periodontol 82(4):613–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Krebs M, Schmenger K, Meumann K, Weigl P, Moser W, Nentwig GH (2013) Long- term evaluation of Ankylos dental implants, part 1: 20-year life table analysis of a longitudinal study of more than 12,500 implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 17:e275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mangano C, Mangano F, Piattelli A, Iezzi G, La Colla L, Mangano A (2008) Single- tooth Morse taper connection implants after 1 year of functional loading: a multicenter study on 302 patients. Eur J Oral Implatol 1(4):305–315Google Scholar
  28. Mangano C, Mangano F, Piattelli A, Iezzi G, Mangano A, La Colla L (2009) Prospective clinical evaluation of 1920 Morse taper connection implants: results after 4 years of functional loading. Clin Oral Implants Res 20(3):254–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mangano C, Mangano F, Shibli JA, Tettamanti L, Figliuzzi M, d’Avila S, Sammons RL, Piatelli A (2011) Prospective evaluation of 2,549 Morse taper connection implants: 1- to 6-year data. J Periodontol 82(1):52–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Quiryen M, Van Steenberghe D (1993) Bacterial colonization of the internal part of two stage implants. An in vivo study. Clin Oral Implants Res 4:158–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rodriguez-Ciurana X, Rodado-Alonso C, Selala-Torres M (2006) Benefits of an implant platform modification technique to reduce crestal bone resorption. Implant Dent 15:313–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Romanos GE (2004) Present status of immediate loading of oral implants. J Oral Implantol 30(3):189–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Salama H. One abutment/one time. dentalXP.com, May 2011.
  34. Tarnow DP, Cho SC, Wallace SS (2000) The effect of inter-implant distance on the height of inter-implant bone crest. J Periodontol 71:546–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tesmer M, Wallet S, Koutouzis T, Lundgren T (2009) Bacterial colonization of the dental implant fixture-abutment interface: an in vitro study. J Periodontol 80(12):1991–1997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Testori T, Galli F, Capelli M, Zuffetti F, Esposito M (2007) Immediate nonocclusal versus early loading of dental implants in partially edentulous patients: 1-year results from a multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 22(5):815–822PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Vela X, Mendez V, Rodriguez X, Segala M, Tarnow DP (2012) Crestal bone changes on platform-switched implants and adjacent teeth when the tooth-implant distance is less than 1.5 mm. Int J Periodontics Restor Dent 32(2):149–155Google Scholar
  38. Wadhwani C, Hess T, Pineyro A, Opler R, Chung K-H (2012) Cement application techniques in luting implant-supported crowns: a quantitative and qualitative survey. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 27:859–864PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Wang Y, Kan J, Rungcharassaeng K, Roe P, Lozada J (2015) Marginal bone response of implant with platform switching and non-platform switching in posterior healed sites: a 1-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 26(2):220–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Weng D, Nagata MJH, Bosco AF, de Melo LGN (2011) Influence of microgap location and configuration on radiographic bone loss around submerged implants: an experimental study in dogs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 26:941–946PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Wittneben JG, Buser D, Belser UC, Brägger U (2013) Peri-implant soft tissue conditioning with provisional restorations in the esthetic zone: the dynamic compression technique. Int J Periodontics Restor Dent 33(4):447–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zarb GA, Schmitt A (1990) The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants: the Toronto study. Part 1: surgical results. J Prosthet Dent 63:451–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Advanced Education in PeriodonticsUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations