Advertisement

Prosthetic Complications with Immediately Loaded, Full-Arch, Fixed Implant-Supported Prostheses

  • Steven Bongard
  • David PowellEmail author
Chapter
Part of the BDJ Clinician’s Guides book series (BDJCG)

Abstract

Immediate placement and immediate loading of dental implants with full-arch fixed implant-supported prostheses have repeatedly been shown to be a successful treatment modality (Malo et al., J Am Dent Assoc 142:310–20, 2011; Maló et al., Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 14:e139–e50, 2012; Maló et al., Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 17:e531–e41, 2015; Maló et al., Eur J Oral Implantol 4:227–43, 2011). Today, it is becoming a standard treatment approach that provides an incredible service to patients by streamlining the transition from a terminal dentition to a fixed prosthesis, eliminating the need for an interim removable denture and reducing overall treatment time (Patzelt et al., Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 16:836–55, 2014; Afrashtehfar et al., Evid Based Dent 17:56–7, 2016). However, obtaining and maintaining a successful treatment outcome with this therapy can be challenging. From a prosthodontic standpoint, complications can be numerous and arise during the different phases of the treatment process. The aim of this chapter is to review the most common prosthetic complications that occur with full-arch fixed implant-supported prostheses, discuss methods to prevent these issues and present management strategies.

References

  1. 1.
    Malo P, de Araújo NM, Lopes A, Moss SM, Molina GJ. A longitudinal study of the survival of All-on-4 implants in the mandible with up to 10 years of follow-up. J Am Dent Assoc. 2011;142(3):310–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maló P, de Araújo NM, Lopes A, Francischone C, Rigolizzo M. “All-on-4” immediate-function concept for completely edentulous maxillae: a clinical report on the medium (3 years) and long-term (5 years) outcomes. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012;14(s1):e139–e50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Maló P, Araújo Nobre M, Lopes A, Ferro A, Gravito I. All-on-4® treatment concept for the rehabilitation of the completely edentulous mandible: a 7-year clinical and 5-year radiographic retrospective case series with risk assessment for implant failure and marginal bone level. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015;17(S2):e531–e41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Maló P, Lopes A. The rehabilitation of completely edentulous maxillae with different degrees of resorption with four or more immediately loaded implants: a 5-year retrospective study and a new classification. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2011;4(3):227–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Patzelt S, Bahat O, Reynolds MA, Strub JR. The All-on-four treatment concept: a systematic review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014;16(6):836–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Afrashtehfar KI. The all-on-four concept may be a viable treatment option for edentulous rehabilitation. Evid Based Dent. 2016;17(2):56–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Maló P, Rangert B, Nobre M. All-on-4 immediate-function concept with Brånemark System® implants for completely edentulous maxillae: a 1-year retrospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2005;7(s1):s88–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Drago C, Howell K. Concepts for designing and fabricating metal implant frameworks for hybrid implant prostheses. J Prosthodont. 2012;21(5):413–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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(10):1228–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Abdulmajeed AA, Lim KG, Närhi TO, Cooper LF. Complete-arch implant-supported monolithic zirconia fixed dental prostheses: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;115(6):672–7. e1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Menini M, Signori A, Tealdo T, Bevilacqua M, Pera F, Ravera G, et al. Tilted implants in the immediate loading rehabilitation of the maxilla a systematic review. J Dent Res. 2012;91(9):821–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Papaspyridakos P, Chen C-J, Chuang S-K, Weber H-P, Gallucci GO. A systematic review of biologic and technical complications with fixed implant rehabilitations for edentulous patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012;27(1):102–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schmitt A, Zarb GA. The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants for single-tooth replacement. Int J Prosthodont. 1993;6(2):197–202.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    De Bruyn H, Collaert B, Lindén U, Björn A. Patient's opinion and treatment outcome of fixed rehabilitation on Brinemark implants. A 3-year follow-up study in private dental practices. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1997;8(4):265–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    da Cunha MC, Santos JF, Santos MB, Marchini L. Patients’ expectation before and satisfaction after full-arch fixed implant-prosthesis rehabilitation. J Oral Implantol. 2015;41(3):235–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sadowsky SJ. The implant-supported prosthesis for the edentulous arch: design considerations. J Prosthet Dent. 1997;78(1):28–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goodacre CJ, Bernal G, Rungcharassaeng K, Kan JY. Clinical complications with implants and implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;90(2):121–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sadowsky SJ, Fitzpatrick B, Curtis DA. Evidence-based criteria for differential treatment planning of implant restorations for the maxillary edentulous patient. J Prosthodont. 2015;24(6):433–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sadowsky SJ, Hansen PW. Evidence-based criteria for differential treatment planning of implant restorations for the mandibular edentulous patient. J Prosthodont. 2014;23(2):104–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    The glossary of prosthodontic terms. J Prosthet Dent. 2005;94(1):10–92.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Drago C. Cantilever lengths and anterior-posterior spreads of interim, acrylic resin, full-arch screw-retained prostheses and their relationship to prosthetic complications. J Prosthodont. 2017;26(6):502–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Spazzin AO, Camargo B, Bacchi A. Ensuring passivity and retrievability for immediate complete-arch implant-supported prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;117(2):214–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Papaspyridakos P, Hirayama H, Chen CJ, Ho CH, Chronopoulos V, Weber HP. Full-arch implant fixed prostheses: a comparative study on the effect of connection type and impression technique on accuracy of fit. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;27(9):1099–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Davies S, Gray R, Young M. Good occlusal practice in the provision of implant borne prostheses. Br Dent J. 2002;192(2):79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schnitman P. The profile prosthesis: an aesthetic fixed implant-supported restoration for the resorbed maxilla. Pract periodontics Aesthet Dent. 1998;11(1):143–51.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Del Castillo R, Ercoli C, Delgado JC, Alcaraz J. An alternative multiple pontic design for a fixed implant-supported prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent. 2011;106(3):198–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Purcell BA, McGlumphy EA, Holloway JA, Beck FM. Prosthetic complications in mandibular metal-resin implant-fixed complete dental prostheses: a 5-to 9-year analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008;23(5):847–57.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chrysalis Dental CentresNorth YorkCanada

Personalised recommendations