Clinical evaluation and prosthetic complications of single tooth replacements by non‐submerged implants

Mericske‐Stern, Regina; Grütter, Linda; Rösch, Rolf; Mericske, Ernoe

doi:10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.012004309.x

Cited by 89 publications

(75 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…5 The use of Morse tapers has virtually eliminated screw loosening 20 and has shown satisfactory long-term performance. 21 The use locking tapers has shown a 10-year survival rate of 99.0% with single-tooth restorations, 22 and complications are rare. 3,23 …”

Section: Implant-abutment Connectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Integrated Abutment Crown™, a Screwless and Cementless Restoration for Single‐Tooth Implants: A Report on a New Technique

Urdaneta

Marincola

2007

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A technique is presented for the restoration of single-tooth, implant-supported crowns where the abutment and the crown material are chemomechanically bonded; therefore, there is no need for cement, and the implant and implant-abutment are connected with a screwless locking-taper. The clinical and laboratory procedures involved in the fabrication and insertion of the restoration are described in detail. This restoration offers the restorative dentist some advantages: excellent marginal adaptation with a cementless interface, a bacterially sealed implant-abutment connection, a crown material with a similar wear rate and hardness values of human enamel, a simple laboratory technique, and a reduced number of prosthetic components. Due to the light-cured nature of the crown material, chairside modifications can be accomplished. The major drawbacks are: studies are necessary to assess the long-term performance of the Integrated Abutment Crown (IAC)'s in both anterior and posterior areas of the mouth. Resin materials have higher roughness values, accumulate plaque at a higher rate, and are more likely to stain than tooth structure and all-ceramic restorations.

show abstract

Section: Implant-abutment Connectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Integrated Abutment Crown™, a Screwless and Cementless Restoration for Single‐Tooth Implants: A Report on a New Technique

Urdaneta

Marincola

2007

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Implant-supported rehabilitation has become common practice for tooth replacement as a result of trauma, dental caries, periodontal disease, or for cases of a congenitally missing tooth (Mericske-Stern et al 2001;Rosen et al 2016). Implants anchorage to bone (osseointegration) (Depprich et al 2008) is achieved by close contact between bone and implant (Novaes et al 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implant-associated cracked teeth: case series

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: This study presents a series of 18 cases of cracked non-endodontically treated teeth that were diagnosed following the placement of adjacent implant-supported rehabilitation. These findings could suggest a possible cause/ related events. Results: Most of the cases occurred in female patients (61%), over 50 years old (78%, with an average age of 59 years). Nine (50%) of the cracked teeth were molars, 7 (39%) were mandibular premolars, and 2 (11%) were incisor teeth. Most of the cracked teeth (61%) had an amalgam restoration, 50% had deep periodontal pockets, and 78% had vital pulps. In 78% of patients, multiple implants were placed (with an average of 3 implants per patient). The time from implant loading to the diagnosis of a crack was longer than 1 year in 78% of cases. Conclusions: The most common patient profile found in this series was a woman over 50 years old, having a cracked mandibular premolar tooth, which was diagnosed more than 1 year after reconstruction based on multiple adjacent implants. Additional clinical studies are warranted in order to shed light on this potential complication.

show abstract

“…Moreover, studies comparing the final results of metal ceramic crowns with the all ceramic crowns in the same study were absent in this review. (24) The values for all-ceramic implant crowns inside this research had been much like the values of a current systematic review examining all-ceramic crowns on tooth abutments (Wassermann et al) (26) In 12 incorporated research, In cream Alumina crowns of 1724 were determined over a minimal duration of 1-3 months as much as a maximum period of 100 months. Survival rates ranged from 86.5% to 100%.…”

Section: Discussion:-mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All the studies were published from 2000-2017. In nineteen studies (10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29) the implants were placed by means of a standard surgical protocol in a healed normal implant site of bone Type III or IV. an ‗early' implant placement in two studies (Type II) was performed and immediate implant placement in other three studies (Type I) was done.…”

Section: Results:-mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Different Superstructure Materials of Implant Supported Restoration. A Systematic Review.

Mokhtar¹,

Fahmy²,

Mahrousand³

et al. 2018

IJAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives:The purpose of this review was to recognize the biological complication of implant superstructure materials in comparative to alveolar bone loss around superstructure. Methodology: A search on the electronic database and additional a manual searching was focused to detect randomized clinical trials and other studies that gives a sign about superstructure complication. alveolar bone loss was ascribed to the amount of rescission, crestal bone and loss Pocket depth. Results:The initial search gives a twenty-six from an initial search of 144 studies and the analyzing data were tabled rendering to output complication. Pocket probing depth were recognized in eighteen clinical studies, Pocket probing depth around all ceramic superstructure was 3.1 mm versus 3.5 mm for porcelain fused to metal superstructure. sixteen studies inspected the recession index for all ceramic and porcelain fused to metal superstructure. recession index ranged from 0.1 to 0.5 at porcelain fused to metal superstructure and 0 to 0.3 at all ceramic superstructure. alveolar bone loss around all ceramic superstructure was itemized to differ from 0.21 -1.5 and 0.4 -1.5 mm at porcelain fused to metal superstructure. Conclusion: The information described in this systematic review did not give an indication for the complication regarding all ceramic versus porcelain fused to metal superstructure. However, it can be settled that the assessment of the randomized clinical trials did not provide an absolute prime for the choice of ceramic or porcelain fused to metal as superstructure material relative to alveolar bone response.

show abstract

Clinical evaluation and prosthetic complications of single tooth replacements by non‐submerged implants

Cited by 89 publications

References 28 publications

The Integrated Abutment Crown™, a Screwless and Cementless Restoration for Single‐Tooth Implants: A Report on a New Technique

The Integrated Abutment Crown™, a Screwless and Cementless Restoration for Single‐Tooth Implants: A Report on a New Technique

Implant-associated cracked teeth: case series

The Effect of Different Superstructure Materials of Implant Supported Restoration. A Systematic Review.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About