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. 30 Fig. 31 Fig. 32 Fig. 33 Fig. 30: OPG 2001. – Fig. 31: OPG 2004 after expansion. – Fig. 32: Peri-implantitis manifestation. – Fig. 33: Bowl-shaped defects. In the spring of 2016, he made an appointment due to severe pain. A suspected peri-implantitis at the implants placed in 2000 was confirmed by pan- oramic X-ray. As a consequence, the implants had to be removed, leaving again free-end situations and two significant bone defect situations (Figs. 30–37). Given the lack of patient cooperation, combined with meagre starting conditions and the contin- ued presence of periodonthopaty, the result is not surprising. Acknowledging shortcomings the flawed patient selection. In addition, the insertion of the implants can be critically evaluated. Success? Failure? Learning curves. Implants have become a fixed component of pros- thetic concepts. To what degree implantology has become established in dentistry is reflected in the high patient acceptance of this form of treatment. Implants are actively requested by patients, as, from their points of view, their evaluation seems Data Case 5 January 2000 (regio 47, 46, 16, 15), May 2002 (regio 14), February/April 2005 (regio 12,44) Prosthetic treatment: June 2000, August 2000, April and July 2005 X-ray examinations: directly post-operative, 2001, 2004, 2016 Recall: 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2016; 2008–2015 no dental check-ups Special characteristics: explantation OK/UK right hand side Fig. 36 Fig. 34 Fig. 35 Fig. 37 Fig. 34: Explant. – Fig. 35: After explantation. – Fig. 36: OPG after mandibular explantation. – Fig. 37: Post-explant defect. 14 implants 1 2017