Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download
ePaper created 2017-06-02, 10:40:19 | version 1.38.0
T w o i m p l a n t s s u p p o r t i n g a m a n d i b u l a r o v e r d e n t u r e Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Fig. 6a Fig. 6b Nevertheless, when the opposing arch was a removable complete denture, the over-jet was left purposely broad, from 2 to 5 mm in order to avoid interferences during function. Instructions were given to the patients, and recall visits were scheduled for occlusal adjustments and oral hygiene quality control every six months and for retentive cap replacement every year (Figs. 7 & 8). O u t c o m e m e a s u r e s The primary outcome measures were the following: – Success rates of the implants and prosthesis: An implant was considered a failure if it pre- sented with any mobility, assessed by tapping or rocking the implant head with the metallic handles of two instruments, progressive mar- ginal bone loss or infection, and any mechan- ical complications rendering the implant un- usable, although still mechanically stable in the bone. A prosthesis was considered a failure if it needed to be replaced with another pros- thesis. – Complications: Any biological (pain, swelling, suppuration, etc.) and/or mechanical (screw loosening, fracture of the framework and/or the veneering material, etc.) complications were evaluated. Fig. 2 Clinical view after placement of the two implants (Osstem TSIII) according to a one-stage protocol. Fig. 3 Silicone protective discs before denture rebase. Fig. 4 Soft retentive caps in the female steel housing. Fig. 5 Stronger retentive caps. Figs. 6a & b View of the definitive prosthesis. Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation Volume 3 | Issue 2/2017 55