Implant-supported hybrid prosthesis: Conventional treatment method for borderline cases

 

 Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

An implant-supported hybrid prosthesis is an acrylic resin complete fixed dental prosthesis and supported by implants might be a solution in extreme cases that the need of the restoration for esthetics, function, lip support, and speech. This clinical report aims to present the esthetic and functional prosthetic rehabilitation of three borderline cases with implant-supported hybrid prostheses. Patient 1 (62-year-old man) and Patient 2 (61-year-old man) presented a chief complaint of a compromised esthetic. After clinical evaluations, in Patient 1, 8 implants in the maxilla and 7 implants in mandibula were observed. Patient 2 had 7 implants in the maxilla and 7 implants in mandibula, which were previously placed. The intra-arch dimension of both patients was excessive and an insufficient peri-oral soft tissue support was observed. Patient 3 was a 61-year-old man had 2 implants with a history of previously implanted graft infection and implant loss on his maxillary posterior jaw. An excessive intra-arch dimension was observed in clinical examination. In addition, massive bone defect and insufficient soft tissue support were examined. In all patients, implant-supported hybrid prostheses were successfully performed. The clinical and radiologic findings were satisfactory. After 3 years of follow-up, no functional, phonetic, or esthetic problems with the restorations were noted. These case reports suggest that implant-supported hybrid prostheses can be a reliable alternative treatment procedure when a porcelain-fused metal fixed restoration does not satisfy a patient's requirements for esthetics, phonetics, oral hygiene, and oral comfort.

• REFERENCES

• 1 El Askary AE. Fundamentals of Esthetic Implant Dentistry. 2nd ed.. Ames, Iowa, USA: Munksgaard, Blackwell; 2007: p. 13
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 2 Misch CE. Contemporary Implant Dentistry. St. Louis, MO: Mosby Elsevier; 2008: p. 99-100
  Google Scholar
• 3 Thalji G, Bryington M, De Kok IJ, Cooper LF. Prosthodontic management of implant therapy. Dent Clin North Am 2014; 58: 207-25
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Pjetursson BE, Thoma D, Jung R, Zwahlen M, Zembic A. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) after a mean observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23 (Suppl. 06) 22-38
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Tourah A, Moshaverinia A, Chee WW. Mandibular implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis with a modified design: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 111: 91-5
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Dym H, Pierse J. Advanced techniques in bone grafting procedures. Dent Clin North Am 2011; 55: 453-60 , vii
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Beagle JR. Surgical Essentials of Immediate Implant Dentistry. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell; 2013: p. 32
  Google Scholar
• 8 Sertgöz A, Güvener S. Finite element analysis of the effect of cantilever and implant length on stress distribution in an implant-supported fixed prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent 1996; 76: 165-9
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Priest G, Smith J, Wilson MG. Implant survival and prosthetic complications of mandibular metal-acrylic resin implant complete fixed dental prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 111: 466-75
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Law C, Bennani V, Lyons K, Swain M. Influence of implant framework and mandibular flexure on the strain distribution on a Kennedy class II mandible restored with a long-span implant fixed restoration: A pilot study. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 112: 31-7
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Demarosi F, Leghissa GC, Sardella A, Lodi G, Carrassi A. Localised maxillary ridge expansion with simultaneous implant placement: A case series. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009; 47: 535-40
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar