Challenging Maxillary Anterior Implant-Supported Restorations: Creating Predictable Outcomes with Zirconia
The restoration of form and function with dental implants often presents challenges to the most experienced clinician. Each case category has requirements, whether it is a single tooth or a complete arch in need of restoration. The anterior zone, especially the maxilla, can present issues beyond our traditional knowledge of tooth-supported restorations. The high lip line accompanied by irregular bone loss patterns has challenged the practice of implant dentistry since the inception of reliable osseointegrated implants. In the ensuing years, the advancement of implant technology along with regenerative technologies has provided the backbone of improving treatment outcomes. Developments such as 3D radiography, advanced treatment planning software and high-performance ceramics have opened new possibilities in treatment objectives and greater understanding of the requirements for successful management of the complex anterior aesthetic zone. This chapter will explore a series of cases from the single tooth to multi-unit restorations in both the maxilla and mandibular zones. Explanation of the differential treatment choices and subsequent restorative results will be presented along with pertinent supporting evidence.
KeywordsZirconia Monolithic zirconia Minimally veneered zirconia Digital workflow Prototypes Provisionals Zirconia properties Zirconia clinical performance
The author would like to thank Hiam Keren, MDT, for the laboratory support in the production of the restorations and Danae Sandoval for the technical assistance in the preparation of this manuscript. The author reported no conflicts of interest.
- Cassetta M, Stefanelli L, Giansanti M, Di Mambro A, Calasso S (2013) Accuracy of a computer-aided implant surgical technique. Int J Periodont Rest Dent 33(3):316–325Google Scholar
- Cohen M (ed) (2008) Interdisciplinary treatment planning: principles, design, implementation, 1st edn. Quintessence, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- Dym H (2015) Implant procedures for the general dentist. Dent Clin 53(2):255–528Google Scholar
- Harris D, Horner K, Gröndahl K, Jacobs R, Helmrot E, Benic G, Bornstein M, Dawood A, Quirynen MEAO (2012) Guidelines for the use of diagnostic imaging in implant dentistry 2011. A consensus workshop organized by the European Association for Osseointegration at the Medical University of Warsaw. Clin Oral Implants Res 23:1243–1253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Jokstad A, Braegger U, Brunski JB, Carr AB, Naert I, Wennerberg A (2004) Quality of dental implants. Int J Prosthodont 17(6):607–641Google Scholar
- Keren H, Caro S. Das beste material. Dent Lab. 2009Google Scholar
- Ko N, Mine A, Egusa H, Shimazu T, Ko R, Nakano T, Yatani H (2014) Allergic reaction to titanium-made fixed dental restorations: a clinical report. J Prosthodont:1–3Google Scholar
- Lang N, Berglundh T, Heitz-Mayfield L, Pjetursson B, Salvi G, Sanz M (2004) Consensus statements and recommended clinical procedures regarding implant survival and complications. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 19:150–154Google Scholar
- Moscovitch MS (2015a) Monolithic zirconia fixed prostheses. In: Beumer J, Faulkner R, Shah C, Moy P (eds) Fundamentals of implant dentistry, volume 1: prosthodontic principles. Quintessence Books, Hanover Park, pp 94–101Google Scholar