Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download

implants international magazine of oral implantology

I industry report Fig. 7_Impression (note that the coloured caps have been removed). Fig. 8_Positive model. Fig. 9_Vario SR abutments in place. Fig. 10_Burn-out copings in place. Fig. 11_Fitting of copings. Fig. 12_Wax model. Fig. 13_Cast framework. Fig. 14_Checking the framework on the model. Fig. 15_Rough framework. Fig. 16_View of the gingival wells formed by the healing caps. ity of the framework (Figs. 19 & 20). During the try- in of the bridge, there were slight gaps in the mesial implants (Fig. 21). These resulted from a contact point with tooth #13 that was too low. After some adjustments had been made, the gaps disappeared (Fig. 22). Figure 23 shows the occlusal view of the bridge during the try-in. The abutment screws were thentightenedto20Ncm,andtheprostheticscrews were tightened to 15 Ncm. The occlusal access wells were filled with a cot- ton pellet and composite (Fig. 24). In spite of the re- sulting irregular and non-homogeneous appear- ance,thepatientwasnotbotheredintheleastbythe cosmeticoutcome.Figures25aandbshowthefinal result three months after the insertion of the pros- thesis, with the cosmetic irregularities still visible from the palatal perspective. Note the final X-ray (Fig. 26). _Discussion The significant amount of attached gingiva and bonevolumeinthiscaseallowedustoperformsur- gery with minimal detachment of soft tissue. With the raising of the flaps, we did not have to work 38 I implants2_2012 Fig. 16 Fig. 14 Fig. 15 Fig. 11 Fig. 12 Fig. 13 Fig. 10 Fig. 17 Fig. 18 Fig. 7 Fig. 8 Fig. 9