Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download

CAD/CAM - international magazine of digital dentistry, Italian Edition, No.1, 2018

expert article _ implantoprotesi Ovviamente una protesi fissa su quattro im- pianti può essere una possibile alternativa all’o- verdenture mandibolare su quattro impianti e supportata da una barra in titanio CAD/CAM con un sistema di attacco a basso profilo. Tuttavia, questa tipologia di riabilitazione fissa è associa- to a una perdita ossea marginale più elevata, a una maggior frequenza di complicanze biomec- caniche e a uno scarso controllo della placca, in particolare nei pazienti estremamente atrofi- ci22-25. Nel presente caso clinico, è stata rilevata una minima perdita ossea marginale a 3 anni dal carico protesico, a dimostrazione del fatto che questa tipologia di riabilitazione garantisce un buon livello di igiene domiciliare. L’overdenture supportata da barra, simile a una protesi fissa, migliora in modo significativo la soddisfazione del paziente grazie a un miglioramento dell’e- stetica e della funzione masticatoria. Inoltre, le flange protesiche consentono il pieno sostegno delle labbra e delle guance. Conclusioni Entro i limiti di questo studio, un’overdenture mandibolare su quattro impianti e supportata da una barra in titanio CAD/CAM con un sistema di attacco a basso profilo può essere considerata un’opzione efficace e prevedibile per i pazienti con discrepanze scheletriche e con mascellari estremamente atrofici (Cawood e Howell Classe VI). Il rimodellamento osseo marginale minimo, i buoni parametri parodontali e la soddisfazione del paziente risultano predicibili. Gli autori ringraziano Marco Vannini e Marco Ortensi per il supporto fornito nella realizzazione del presente caso clinico. _bibliografia 1. Cawood JI, Howell RA. A classification of the edentulous jaws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1988 Aug;17(4):232–6. review on implant-supported overdentures. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012 Oct;23 Suppl 6:229–37. 2. Fitzpatrick B. Standard of care for the edentulous mandible: a systematic 14. Lee JY, Kim HY, Shin SW, Bryant SR. Number of implants for mandibular implant review. J Prosthet Dent 2006 Jan;95(1):71–8. 3. Burns DR. Mandibular implant overdenture treatment: consensus and con- troversy. J Prosthodont 2000 Mar;9(1):37–46. 4. Zitzmann NU, Marinello CP. Treatment plan for restoring the edentulous maxilla with implant-supported restorations: removable overdenture ver- sus fixed partial denture design. J Prosthet Dent 1999 Aug;82(2):188–96. 5. Jemt T, Book K, Linden B, Urde G. Failures and complications in 92 consecu- tively inserted overdentures supported by Brånemark implants in severely resorbed edentulous maxillae: a study from prosthetic treatment to first annual check-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992 Summer;7(2):162–7. 6. Pozzi A, Tallarico M, Moy PK. Four-implant overdenture fully supported by a CAD-CAM titanium bar: a single-cohort prospective 1-year preliminary study. J Prosthet Dent 2016 Oct;116(4):516–23. 7. Tallarico M, Meloni MS, Xhanari E, Canullo L. Three-year clinical and radio- graphic outcomes of patients treated according to the All-on-4 concept in the daily practice: a prospective observational study on implants and prosthesis survival rates and complications. J Oral Science Rehabilitation 2016 Jun;2(2):16–25. overdentures: a systematic review. J Adv Prosthodont 2012 Apr;4:204–9. 15. Naert I, Gizani S, Vuylsteke M, van Steenberghe D. A randomised clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants in mandibular overdenture therapy. A 3-year report. Clin Oral Investig 1997 Jun;1(2):81–8. 16. Batenburg RH, Raghoebar GM, Van Oort RP, Heijdenrijk K, Boering G. Man- dibular overdentures supported by two or four endosteal implants. A pro- spective, comparative study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1998 Dec;27(6):435–9. 17. Weinländer M, Piehslinger E, Krennmair G. Removable implant-prostho- dontic rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible: five-year results of dif- ferent prosthetic anchorage concepts. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010 May-Jun;25(3):589–97. 18. Tallarico M, Vaccarella A, Marzi GC. Clinical and radiological outcomes of 1- versus 2-stage implant placement: 1-year results of a randomised clinical trial. Eur J Oral Implantol 2011 Spring;4(1):13–20. 19. Pozzi A, Tallarico M, Mangani F, Barlattani A. Different implant impression techniques for edentulous patients treated with CAD/ CAM complete-arch prostheses: a randomised controlled trial reporting data at 3 year postloa- ding. Eur J Oral Implantol 2013 Winter;6(4):325–40. 8. Abi Nader S, Eimar H, Momani M, Shang K, Daniel NG, Tamimi F. Plaque accumulation beneath maxillary All-on-4 implant- supported prostheses. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015 Oct;17(5):932–7. 20. Abduo J, Bennani V, Waddell N, Lyons K, Swain M. Assessing the fit of im- plant fixed prostheses: a critical review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010 May-Jun;25(3):506–15. 9. Muller F, Duvernay E, Loup A, Vazquez L, Herrmann FR, Schimmel M. Im- plant- supported mandibular overdentures in very old adults: a randomized controlled trial. J Dent Res 2013 Dec;92(12 Suppl):154S–60S. 21. Eisenmann E, Mokabberi A, Walter MH, Freesmeyer WB. Improving the fit of implant-supported superstructures using the spark erosion technique. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004 Nov-Dec;19(6):810–8. 10. Harris D, Höfer S, O’Boyle CA, Sheridan S, Marley J, Benington IC, Clifford T, Houston F, O’Connell B. A comparison of implant-retained mandibular overdentures and conventional dentures on quality of life in edentulous patients: a randomized, prospective, within-subject controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013 Jan;24(1):96–103. 11. Andreiotelli M, Att W, Strub JR. Prosthodontic complications with implant overdentures: a systematic literature review. Int J Prosthodont 2010 May- Jun;23(3):195–203. 12. Alsabeeha NH, Payne AG, Swain MV. Attachment systems for mandibular two-implant overdentures: a review of in vitro investigations on retention and wear features. Int J Prosthodont 2009 Sep-Oct;22(5):429–40. 13. Roccuzzo M, Bonino F, Gaudioso L, Zwahlen M, Meijer HJ. What is the op- timal number of implants for removable reconstructions? A systematic 22. Patzelt SB, Bahat O, Reynolds MA, Strub JR. The all-on-four treatment concept: a systematic review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2014 Dec;16(6):836–55. 23. Sadowsky SJ. Treatment considerations for maxillary implant overdentures: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2007 Jun;97(6):340–8. 24. Tallarico M, Canullo L, Pisano M, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Peñarrocha-Diago M, Meloni SM. An up to 7-year retrospective analysis of biologic and technical complication with the All-on-4 concept. J Oral Implantol 2016 Jun;42(3):265–71. 25. Tallarico M, Meloni SM, Canullo L, Caneva M, Polizzi G. Five-year results of a randomized controlled trial comparing patients rehabilitated with imme- diately loaded maxillary cross-arch fixed dental prosthesis supported by four or six implants placed using guided surgery. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2016 Oct;18(5):965–72. 16 1_2018

Sito