Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download
ePaper created 2018-04-10, 12:30:21 | version 1.38.0
| case report Fig. 23a Fig. 24a Fig. 24b Fig. 23b Fig. 25 Figs. 23a & b: Definitive restorations. Figs. 24 & 25: Three-year follow-up. illary fixed rehabilitation (Figs. 23a & b). The prosthe- sis-bar-supported solution could guarantee enough re- tention and stability to the patient in both functional and psychological aspects. At the three-year follow-up, the tissue was healthy owing to the patient’s hygiene com- pliance (Figs. 24 & 25). Discussion and conclusion While this clinical case reported good patient adap- tation to the definitive restorations, modifying the initial treatment plan can be a challenge, especially when pa- tients chose to be treated with implants because they are maladapted to removable solutions. As reported in this case, with a sufficient number of implants of ad- equate length, the superstructure can be purely im- plant-supported in construction. However, when bone is severely resorbed,15 the distance between the implants and the incisal edge position cannot be solved with a fixed restoration because of the lack of lip support or poor phonetics. Current criteria for planning and deciding on treat- ment have been reported in literature and are consid- ered a fundamental guide for establishing the treat- ment plan.16, 17 This case treatment would emphasise Literature the importance of not promising the patient a fixed maxillary restoration until the final wax trial has been accepted.18–20 Acknowledgements Thanks to Marco Vannini and Rhein’83 for their sup- port and for sharing their experience with us in solving this clinical case. contact Dr Alessio Casucci Private practice Via Bari 31 53045 Montepulciano Italy alessio.casucci@gmail.com Alessandro Ielasi Dental lab Ielasi Snc, Via Mazzella Luigi 80077 Ischia Italy alessandroielasi@libero.it Author details Author details 32 1 2018