Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download
ePaper created 2017-11-09, 09:28:26 | version 1.38.0
overview | Fig. 13 Fig. 14 Fig. 15 Fig. 16 Fig. 17 Fig. 18 Fig. 19 Fig. 20 Figs. 13–16: Case 4: A two-piece Z5c tissue level implant was inserted in region #12. Figs. 17–20: Case 5: Bone level indication extensions (Z5s implants in regions #46 and 47). Such comparative studies will not be available in the near future, probably owing to the complexity in time in- volved in carrying them out, and a lack of a consistent study protocol reduces the possibility of easy compa- rability. In private practice, dentists can be vulnerable and must carefully observe their duty to inform patients. Crit- ical consideration of the subject and one’s own respon- sibility of action thus remain of great importance to im- plantologists. Summary Implantologists can complement their implant prac- tice today with ceramic implants and thereby gain the necessary experience in handling them. Many uncer- tainties can be assuaged with clinical use in practice and the literature that is already available. Ceramic implants represent a realistic alternative to titanium implants. A thorough consideration of a metal-free approach is rec- ommended. The statements about ceramic implants and their use that have been broadly propagated in the media have led to an increased demand for advice, and this must be properly addressed. There is greater clini- cal experience with single-piece implants, and the risks in the healing phase are fundamentally greater owing to undesired loading. The reverse is true for two-piece implants. Ceramic implants as a vision? Everyday? In our prac- tice, patients can choose between ceramic and titanium systems. Literature contact Dr Jochen Mellinghoff Pfauengasse 14 89073 Ulm, Germany jochen.mellinghoff@dr-mellinghoff.de www.dr-mellinghoff.de Author details implants 1 2017 17