Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download
ePaper created 2017-03-17, 12:34:42 | version 1.38.0
| overview Fig. 22 Data Case 4 DVT (controls of the augmentation performed alio loco): October 2014 Implantation: December 2014 (regio 25, 26, 27) Prosthetic restoration: March 2015 Explantation of all three implants, including supraconstruction: March 2016 Fig. 23 Fig. 24 Fig. 25 Fig. 26 Fig. 27 Fig. 28 Fig. 29 Fig. 22: OPG of the initial situation. Fig. 23: CBCT check-up of the augmentation. Fig. 24: OPG after Implantation. Fig. 25: Supraconstruction. Fig. 26: Augmentation residues at compensated by an increased nicotine intake. The patient spent the little free time he had at his dis- posal by extensive travels abroad, rather than at- tending consultations at his dentist’s, which prob- ably made him the first patient who managed to miss twenty-two recall sessions in fifteen years. the opening. Fig. 27: Explant. Fig. 28: Defect after explantation. Fig. 29: After defect reconstruction. However, there were phases of increased dental activity, mostly when he had lost one or more of his residual teeth due to periodontal lesions or in- flammatory exacerbations. duced, periodontium. Free-end situations result- ing from the extraction of non-retainable teeth in the right maxilla and mandible were treated with two implants each. The teeth 14,12 and 44 could not be retained in the following years due to severe periodontal re- lapses. As a result, they were replaced by implants. At this point it became clear that the patient did not belong to the most reliable kind of patients as he missed some of his recall sessions as well as professional tooth cleanings. Yet, the case had had a promising start, as the patient’s periodontal restoration at the turn of the millennium had resulted in a restored, albeit re- In the end, this estimation proved true: Between 2008 and 2015, all contact to the patient ceased. 12 implants 1 2017