Advertisement

Material Considerations for Full-Arch Implant-Supported Restorations

  • Saj JivrajEmail author
  • Sundeep Rawal
Chapter
Part of the BDJ Clinician’s Guides book series (BDJCG)

Abstract

There are various materials to choose from when designing full-arch fixed implant-supported restorations. Material choices include a traditional acryl resin titanium prosthesis to monolithic milled zirconia. As technological advancements occur, newer materials and manufacturing process are being introduced into these therapies; however clear guidelines on design and material selection are lacking. The purpose of this chapter is to look at specific areas including screw access, restorative space, opposing dentition, aesthetics, framework design and fabrication processes to create guidelines to aid clinicians in making relevant and predictable decisions with respect to therapy for patients with fixed implant-supported restorations.

References

  1. 1.
    Rojas-Vizcaya F. Full zirconia fixed detachable implant-retained restorations manufactured from monolithic zirconia: clinical report after two years in service. J Prosthodont. 2011;20:570–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chee W, Felton D, Johnson P, Sullivan D. Cemented versus screw-retained implant prostheses: which is better? Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999;14(1):137–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chee W, Jivraj S. Screw versus cemented implant supported restorations. Treatment Planning in Implant Dentistry. Lowestoft, Suffolk, UK: British Dental Journal; 2007. p. 81–7.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sailer I, Muhlemann S, Zwahlen M, Hammerle CH, Schneider D. Cemented and screw-retained implant reconstructions: a systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(Suppl 6):163–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jivraj S, Chee WWL, Corrado P Br Dent J. 2006;201(5).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wicks RA. A systematic approach to definitive planning for osseointegrated implant prostheses. J Prosthodont. 1994;3:237–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jacobs R, Van Steenberghe D. Comparative evaluation of the oral tactile function by means of teeth or implant supported prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1991;2:75–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Davis DM, Packer ME, Watson RM. Maintenance requirements of implant supported fixed prosthesis opposed by implant supported fixed prosthesis, natural teeth, or complete dentures. A five year retrosoective study. Int J Prosthodont. 2003;16:521–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yip KH, Smales RJ, Kaidonis JA. Differential wear of teeth and restorative materials: clinical implications. Int J Prosthodont. 2004;17(3):350–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jung YS, Lee JW, Choi YJ, et al. A study on the in-vitro wear of the natural tooth structure by opposing zirconia or dental porcelain. J Adv Prosthodont. 2010;2:111–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chang PC, Henegbarth EA, Lang LA. Maxillary zirconia implant fixed partial dentures opposing an acrylic resin implant fixed complete denture. A 2 year clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 2007;97(6):321–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Heffernan MJ, Aquilino SA, Diaz-Arnold AM, Haselton DR, Stanford CM, Vargas MA. Relative translucency of six all-ceramic systems. Part I: core materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2002;88(1):4–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Larsson C, Wennerberg A. The clinical success of zirconia-based crowns: a systematic review. Int J Prosthodont. 2014;27(1):33–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goodacre C et al JPD. 2003;90:31–41.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chong KK, Palamara J, Wong RH, Judge RB. Fracture force of cantilevered zirconia frameworks an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;1112:849–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zarb GA, Jansson T. Laboratory procedures and protocol. In: Branemark PI, Zarb G, Albrektsson T, editors. Tissue integrated prostheses: osseointegration in clinical dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence; 1985. p. 303.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Korsch M, Walther W. Peri-implantitis associated with type of cement: a retrospective analysis of different types of cement and their clinical correlation to the peri-implant tissue. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014;17(Suppl 2):e434–43.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12265.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Voitik AJ. The Kulzer abutment luting; Kal technique. A direct assembly framework method for osseointegrated implant prostheses. Implant Soc. 1991;2(1):11–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Almasri R, Drago C, Siegel S, al e. Volumetric misfit in cad/cam and cast implant frameworks: a university laboratory study. J Prosthodont. 2011;20:267–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Drago C, Howell K. Concepts for designing and fabricating metal implant frameworks for hybrid implant prostheses. J Prosthodont. 2012;21(5):413–24.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2012.00835.x. Epub 2012 Mar 13CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Drago C. Ratios of cantilever lengths and anterior-posterior spreads of definitive hybrid full-arch, screw-retained prostheses: results of a clinical study. J Prosthodont. 2016. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kattadiyil MT, Goodacre CJ, Baba NZ. CAD/CAM complete dentures: a review of two commercial fabrication systems. J Calif Dent Assoc. 2013;41(6):407–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Najeeb S, Zafar MS, Khurshid Z, Siddiqui F. Applications of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) in oral implantology and prosthodontics. J Prosthodont Res. 2016;60(1):12–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2015.10.001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sereno N, Rosentritt M, Jarman-smith M, Lang R, Kolbeck C. In-vitro performance evaluation of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) implant prosthetics with a cantilever design. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26(S12):296.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tipton P, Siewert B. High performance polymers part 3. Private Dentistry UK. 2016.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Siewert B, Parra M. A new group of material in dentistry. PEEK as a framework material used in 12-piece implant-supported bridges. Z Zahnärztl Implantol. 2013;29:148–59.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Moura Guedes C. New possibilities for high performance polymers in the MALO clinic protocol. British Association of Restorative Dentistry Conference. 2016.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Abduo J. Fit of CADCAM implant frameworks:a comprehensive review. J Oral Implantol. 2014;40:758–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Larsson C, Vult Von Steyern P. Implant supported full arch zirconia based mandibular fixed dental prostheses. Eight year results from a clinical pilot study. Acta Odontol Scand. 2013;71:1118–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Puri S, Parciak EC, Kattadiyil MT. Complete mouth reconstruction with implant supported fixed partial dental prosthesis fabricated with zirconia frameworks: a 4 year clinical follow up. J Prosthet Dent. 112:397–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cheng CW, Chien CH, Chen CJ, Papaspyridakos P. Complete mouth rehabilitation with modified monolithic zirconia implant supported fixed dental prosthesis and an immediate loading protocol: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;109:347–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Guess PC, Bonfante EA, Silva NR, Coelho PG, Thompson VP. Effect of core design and veneering technique on damage and reliability of Y-TZP-supported crowns. Dent Mater. 2013;29:307–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Miyazaki T, Nakamura T, Matsumura H, Ban S, Kobayashi T. Current status of zirconia restorations. J Prosthodont Res. 2013;57(4):236–61.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2013.09.001. Epub 2013 Oct 18CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Preis V, Letsch C, Handel G, Behr M, Schneider-Feyrer S, Rosentritt M. Influence of substructure design, veneer application technique, and firing regime on the in vitro performance of molar zirconia crowns. Dent Mater. 2013;29:e113–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mosharraf R, Rismanchian M, Savabi O, Ashtiani AH. Influence of surface modification techniques on shear bond strength between different zirconia cores and veneering ceramics. J Adv Prosthodont. 2011;3(4):221–8.  https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2011.3.4.221.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kim JS, Raigrodski AJ, Flinn BD, Rubenstein JE, Chung KH, Mancl LA. In vitro assessment of three types of zirconia implant abutments under static load. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;109(4):255–63.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60054-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pozzi A, Tallarico M, Barlattani A. Monolithic lithium disilicate full contour crowns bonded on CADCAM zirconia complete arch implant bridges with 3-5 years of follow up. J Oral Implantol. 2015;41(4):450–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Herman Ostrow USC School of DentistryLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Eastmann Dental InstituteLondonUK
  3. 3.Private PracticeOxnardUSA
  4. 4.Private PracticeMerritt IslandUSA

Personalised recommendations