Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download
ePaper created 2017-11-09, 09:28:26 | version 1.38.0
| industry Metal-free restauration from A to Z Dr Michael Leistner, Germany Fig. 1: The XT and P6 implant system. Meeting the patients’ needs The informed patient is subject to the consistency of his needs. He meets his dentist at eye level and wants to be objectively in- formed and advised on alter- native treatment possibilities. Today, more and more pa- tients both desire and require metal-free dental provi- sions. Experts are there- fore talking of a major, if not mega trend com- parable to the organic food sector and the con- stantly growing range of organic products. Accord- ing to a survey conducted by Straumann, 53 per cent of the respondents would leave —quite rightly so—the choice of implant material to their dentist. However, 35 per cent of those patients surveyed would choose ceramic implants and only 10 per cent would settle for titanium implants as a substitute for their natural teeth (N.N. 2 per cent).1 After ten years of development and experience gained from more than 30,000 placed implants, ZERAMEX® offers an alternative to titanium implants which is 100 per cent metal-free. This alternative could help to reduce local and systemic inflammations in patients suf- fering from titanium intolerance, which is caused by the interference of titanium dioxide particles with the human body. Those particles result from corrosion and abra- sion processes and are phagocytised by tissue macro- phages. Subsequently, this may lead to chronic and un- specific inflammatory reactions, and, ultimately, to a lack of bone integration and other health problems.2–6 Fig. 1 Nowadays, patients’ expectations are high and varied: they want a safe treat- ment, normally concerning a missing tooth. They want a treatment that is free from health side effects of- fering them a natural dentition without any unwanted in- teractions with the human body or other dental materi- als. And, above all, patients request a natural aesthetic. However, the main argument for using ceramic implants is the material’s positive impact on peri-implant soft tis- sue.7 Blood circulation at ceramics corresponds to the natural tooth, whereas, in titanium, it is significantly re- duced.8 Furthermore, ceramic material has shown a lower deposition of plaque and a lower bacteria adhesion.9, 10 Modern patients consider their teeth as part of their whole body system, and not just as tools for the commi- nution of food. Patients know about the impact of ill teeth on the surrounding tissue, and the possible effects on or- Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 2: The implant body is inserted by hand. – Fig. 3: Postoperative X-ray, placed implant. – Fig. 4: Final situation after prosthetic loading. 32 implants 1 2017