Evidence‐Based Criteria for Differential Treatment Planning of Implant Restorations for the Maxillary Edentulous Patient

Abstract

Since the introduction of the endosseous concept to North America in 1982, there have been new permutations of the original ad modum Branemark design to meet the unique demands of treating the edentulous maxilla with an implant restoration. While there is a growing body of clinical evidence to assist the student, faculty, and private practitioner in the algorithms for design selection, confusion persists because of difficulty in assessing the external and internal validity of the relevant studies. The purpose of this article is to review clinician‐ and patient‐mediated factors for implant restoration of the edentulous maxilla in light of the hierarchical level of available evidence, with the aim of elucidating the benefit/risk calculus of various treatment modalities.

Bar versus ball attachments for maxillary four‐implant retained overdentures: A randomized controlled trial

“…Completely edentulous patient in the maxilla younger than 85 years old Capable of understanding and signing informed consent Available residual alveolar ridge with a minimum height of 7 mm and sufficient bucco-lingual width Sufficient inter-occlusal space with a minimum of 12 mm for an attachment system (Sadowsky et al, 2015) Presence of prolonged disorders, such as TMJ disorders and soft tissue lesions Pregnancy Patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists score (ASA score) ≥III (Smeets, de Jong, & Abraham-Inpijn, 1998)…”

“…According to the literature, the patient's quality of life is improved by the production of a new high‐quality denture for completely edentulous maxillary patients (Adam, Geerts, & Lalloo, ; Roumanas, ) that is accepted as a treatment that can meet the expectations of such patients (Thalji, McGraw, & Cooper, ). However, dental implant therapy, including fixed or removable prostheses, may be considered if the patient is unsatisfied with the new conventional complete denture (CCD) because of the anatomic morphological limitations of the patient, which may impair denture stability and retention or impair patient intolerance, including gag reflexes (Sadowsky, Fitzpatrick, & Curtis, ). Based on the development of dental implantology, MIOs provide high implant success rates, stable clinical parameters and increased patient satisfaction and are accepted as one of the predictive treatment options for completely edentulous maxillary patients (Slot, Raghoebar, Cune, Vissink, & Meijer, , ).…”

Patient satisfaction and oral health‐related quality of life (OHRQoL) of conventional denture, fixed prosthesis and milled bar overdenture for All‐on‐4 implant rehabilitation. A crossover study

“…Milled bar overdentures (MB) are purely implant-supported and have clinical advantages similar to those of fixed prostheses with prosthodontic advantages of the removable dentures (Sadowsky, Fitzpatrick, & Curtis, 2015;Sadowsky & Hansen, 2014;Wright, Glantz, Randow, & Watson, 2002). MB behave biomechanically as fixed implant restorations because of the guiding planes of the milled bar, which decreases rotational movement and incidence of prosthodontic maintenance (Krennmair, Krainhofner, & Piehslinger, 2007, 2008a, 2008bKrennmair, Sütö, Seemann, & Piehslinger, 2012).…”

Multidisciplinary Approach in the Management of a Complex Case: Implant-Prosthetic Rehabilitation of a Periodontal Smoking Patient with Partial Edentulism, Malocclusion, and Aesthetic Diseases

“…Nowadays, both fully [1, 2] and partially edentulous patients [3] can benefit from implant-prosthetic rehabilitation. This discipline has been demonstrating an increase of predictability and success throughout the years, being a valid alternative to prosthetic rehabilitation on natural teeth.…”