Full mouth rehabilitation with implant supported restorations

of 20 /20
FULL MOUTH REHABILITATION WITH IMPLANT SUPPORTED RESTORATIONS A case report by Udatta Kher

description

On reviewing the case report presented by Dr. Udatta Kher, a visual essay of a full mouth implant supported restoration for a 62-year-old healthy non smoker male patient, editorial board member Dr. Ali Tunkiwala had some interesting queries.

Transcript of Full mouth rehabilitation with implant supported restorations

Page 1: Full mouth rehabilitation with implant supported restorations

FULL MOUTH REHABILITATION WITH IMPLANT SUPPORTED

RESTORATIONS

A case report by Udatta Kher

Page 2: Full mouth rehabilitation with implant supported restorations

The following is a visual essay of a full mouth implant supported restoration for a 62- year- old healthy non smoker male patient

Page 3: Full mouth rehabilitation with implant supported restorations

FIG 1: Baseline situation FIG 2: Pre- operative radiograph showing satisfactory bone condition in mandible and highly compromised bone in the maxilla

FIG 3: Extraction of teeth and flapless implant placement

FIG 4: Flapless implant placement. Bio- horizon,

FIG 5: Sinus graft for maxillary first left molar region with Novabone (Calcium PhosphoSilicate)putty with simultaneous implant placement

Page 4: Full mouth rehabilitation with implant supported restorations

FIG 6: Implant positions for maxillary anterior region

FIG 8: Bio- horizon tapered internal implants placed insockets of teeth

FIG 7: Ridge expansion using bone expansion screws

Page 5: Full mouth rehabilitation with implant supported restorations
Page 6: Full mouth rehabilitation with implant supported restorations
Page 7: Full mouth rehabilitation with implant supported restorations

FIG 20: Jaw relation FIG 21: Verification jig in resin for fit of the framework

Page 8: Full mouth rehabilitation with implant supported restorations
Page 9: Full mouth rehabilitation with implant supported restorations
Page 10: Full mouth rehabilitation with implant supported restorations
Page 11: Full mouth rehabilitation with implant supported restorations

Q. Why was a flapless approach chosen forimplants in the mandible? The CBCT showed good volume of bone in the mandible at the sites where implants were planned. The flapless implant placement is minimally invasive and the postoperative recovery after the procedure is very rapid. Thepatient’s existing denture served as a stent and the 2 extraction sockets of teeth # 33 and 43 provided a guideline for accurate implant locations.

Page 12: Full mouth rehabilitation with implant supported restorations

Q. What were the challenges faced in the surgery for maxillary implant placement?The bone volume in the maxilla in the sites of previous extraction was very deficient. Hence bone manipulation and augmentation procedures were used simultaneously to place implants in the maxilla. The left maxillary sinus was grafted to increase vertical height of bone. The anterior maxilla had reduced width of bone. Hence, bone expansionand GBR procedure using Calcium phosphosilicate putty and collagenmembrane was performed at the location of teeth #12 and 22. Since theextraction sockets of teeth # 13, 14, 15 and 23 were found suitable, implants were placed in those sockets and the gaps were grafted with CPS putty.

Page 13: Full mouth rehabilitation with implant supported restorations

Q. What prosthesis was the patient wearing during the healing phase?An immediate denture relined with a soft denture reliner was used as an interim prosthesis.

Page 14: Full mouth rehabilitation with implant supported restorations

Q. Why were the mandibular and maxillary maxillary prosthesis made at different times?The mandibular implants were placed in good non grafted sites. Hence, they were ready for loading after 2 months. Since the maxillary sites were compromisedand needed extensive grafting, the maxillary implants were loaded after 6 months.

Page 15: Full mouth rehabilitation with implant supported restorations

Q. Why were different impression procedureschosen for the two arches?The mandibular implants were almost parallel to each other. A closed or an open tray technique is suitable in such cases. In this case we chose an open tray impression in a stock tray without splinting the impression posts. Due to the configuration of the maxillary bone,the implant angulations have a few degrees of divergence. Hence an open tray impression procedure with a custom tray and splinted impression posts was used to minimize errors in transfer of the implant prosthetic platform.

Page 16: Full mouth rehabilitation with implant supported restorations

Q. How was the jaw relation recorded?A screw-retained base with a wax rim was made to record the jaw relation. The firm base rested on the implants and not the soft tissue. This helped in reducing errors while recording the relation of the maxilla against the mandibular fixed prosthesis.

Page 17: Full mouth rehabilitation with implant supported restorations

Q. Why were screw retained restorations chosen?The screw-retained restorations are easier to maintain since they can be retrieved. That is a big advantage while making multi implant prosthesis.

Page 18: Full mouth rehabilitation with implant supported restorations

Q. Why were different materials chosen for the mandibular and maxillary prosthesis?Porcelain fused to metal screw-retained bridge without any flanges was chosen in the mandible for better maintenance. A hybrid denture was chosen the maxilla to compensate for the loss of the hand and soft tissue. The labial contour needed to be optimum for adequate lip support. A screw retained hybrid denture with acrylic teeth served this purpose. Also, since the maxillary bone was of poorer quality and had grafted sites, a softer material like acrylic was chosen to reduce occlusal stresses transmitted to the bone.

Page 19: Full mouth rehabilitation with implant supported restorations

Q. Why was the mandibular prosthesis made in 2 pieces?The terminal implants in the mandible were placed bilaterally in the region of the first molar. Flexure of the mandible while opening and closing would have created stress in the prosthesis which would eventually lead to bone loss around the implants. The prosthesis was split between right canine and first premolar region to minimize this effect.

Page 20: Full mouth rehabilitation with implant supported restorations

Q. How will the patient maintain the prosthesis? The patient has been advised to use an oral irrigation device for cleaning the prosthesis and interdental brushes to clean the underside of the bridge. The mandibular prosthesis being a flangeless PFM prosthesis will be easier to maintain compared to the one in the maxilla. During a 6 monthly recall, both the prosthesis will be removed for cleaning and better maintenance.