Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download
ePaper created 2018-02-16, 11:17:41 | version 1.38.0
| case report digital workflow Implant insertion through the DWOS Synergy workflow with immediate digital provisionalisation Authors: Drs. Richard Zimmermann & Stefanie Seitz, USA Initial situation Treatment planning A 30-year-old female with a non-contributory medical history presented to the clinic for the evalu- ation of a maxillary edentulous site. Review of her dental history revealed that tooth #12 (ADA) was lost due to failed endondontic therapy approximately a year ago during her pregnancy and she was now ready to have it replaced. She presented with a high smile line, medium-scalloped gingiva with medium thickness, and a desire not to have any metal in her oral cavity. When discussing the various options re- garding implant therapy, the patient was very inter- ested in being evaluated for an all ceramic implant. On 11 January 2016, the FDA cleared the Straumann PURE Ceramic Implant for use within the US. Though new to the US, European case documentation has shown excellent osseointegration and soft tissue response. The Straumann PURE Ceramic Implant is a monotype style implant, meaning the abutment and implant body are one-piece. The patient was sent to get a computerised cone beam tomography (J. Morita) of the area and dig- ital diagnostic impressions were taken using an intraoral scanner (TRIOS 3, 3Shape). Once ob- tained, the DICOMs were imported into the im- plant planning software (coDiagnostiX) while the scan files were imported into the laboratory soft- ware (Straumann CARES Visual; Figs. 1 & 2). Since the Straumann PURE Ceramic Implant are mono- body in design and it is not recommend to modify the abutment, the DWOS Synergy workflow was utilised to virtually plan this case. DWOS Synergy provides real-time communication between the implant planning software (coDiagnostiX) and the lab software (Straumann CARES Visual). This fea- ture improves implant planning by allowing the visualisation of the relationship between the pro- posed implant position and the proposed restora- tion. Modifications made to the implant position Fig. 1 16 CAD/CAM 4 2017