Implant-supported hybrid prosthesis: Conventional treatment method for borderline cases

ABSTRACT

An implant-supported hybrid prosthesis is an acrylic resin complete fixed dental prosthesis and supported by implants might be a solution in extreme cases that the need of the restoration for esthetics, function, lip support, and speech. This clinical report aims to present the esthetic and functional prosthetic rehabilitation of three borderline cases with implant-supported hybrid prostheses. Patient 1 (62-year-old man) and Patient 2 (61-year-old man) presented a chief complaint of a compromised esthetic. After clinical evaluations, in Patient 1, 8 implants in the maxilla and 7 implants in mandibula were observed. Patient 2 had 7 implants in the maxilla and 7 implants in mandibula, which were previously placed. The intra-arch dimension of both patients was excessive and an insufficient peri-oral soft tissue support was observed. Patient 3 was a 61-year-old man had 2 implants with a history of previously implanted graft infection and implant loss on his maxillary posterior jaw. An excessive intra-arch dimension was observed in clinical examination. In addition, massive bone defect and insufficient soft tissue support were examined. In all patients, implant-supported hybrid prostheses were successfully performed. The clinical and radiologic findings were satisfactory. After 3 years of follow-up, no functional, phonetic, or esthetic problems with the restorations were noted. These case reports suggest that implant-supported hybrid prostheses can be a reliable alternative treatment procedure when a porcelain-fused metal fixed restoration does not satisfy a patient's requirements for esthetics, phonetics, oral hygiene, and oral comfort.

Key words:

Dental implants - hybrid prosthesis - intra-arch distance

 

Conflict of Interest

None declared

• REFERENCES

• 1 El Askary AE. Fundamentals of Esthetic Implant Dentistry. 2nd ed.. Ames, Iowa, USA: Munksgaard, Blackwell; 2007: p. 13
• 2 Misch CE. Contemporary Implant Dentistry. St. Louis, MO: Mosby Elsevier; 2008: p. 99-100
• 3 Thalji G, Bryington M, De Kok IJ, Cooper LF. Prosthodontic management of implant therapy. Dent Clin North Am 2014; 58: 207-25
• 4 Pjetursson BE, Thoma D, Jung R, Zwahlen M, Zembic A. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) after a mean observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23 (Suppl. 06) 22-38
• 5 Tourah A, Moshaverinia A, Chee WW. Mandibular implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis with a modified design: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 111: 91-5
• 6 Dym H, Pierse J. Advanced techniques in bone grafting procedures. Dent Clin North Am 2011; 55: 453-60 , vii
• 7 Beagle JR. Surgical Essentials of Immediate Implant Dentistry. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell; 2013: p. 32
• 8 Sertgöz A, Güvener S. Finite element analysis of the effect of cantilever and implant length on stress distribution in an implant-supported fixed prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent 1996; 76: 165-9
• 9 Priest G, Smith J, Wilson MG. Implant survival and prosthetic complications of mandibular metal-acrylic resin implant complete fixed dental prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 111: 466-75
• 10 Law C, Bennani V, Lyons K, Swain M. Influence of implant framework and mandibular flexure on the strain distribution on a Kennedy class II mandible restored with a long-span implant fixed restoration: A pilot study. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 112: 31-7
• 11 Demarosi F, Leghissa GC, Sardella A, Lodi G, Carrassi A. Localised maxillary ridge expansion with simultaneous implant placement: A case series. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009; 47: 535-40