Clinical implant dentistry and related research · 2024
Transitional implants in computer-assisted implant surgery and fixed complete-arch provisionalization: A retrospective case series.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Pedrinaci Ignacio, Ben Dor Betty, Rousson Dominique, Lanis Alejandro, Sanz-Esporrin Javier, Pala Kevser, Gallucci German O, Hamilton Adam
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Using mini implants as transitional implants (TIs) for complete arch implant-supported rehabilitations may overcome limitations associated with mucosa-supported surgical guides and facilitate immediate fixed provisionalization. This study aimed to assess the success of TIs in supporting surgical guides for implant placement and fixed provisional prostheses.
METHODS: Patients who received TIs between 2012 and 2023 for a complete arch implant-supported prosthesis were evaluated retrospectively. Patient demographic data, TI functionality in supporting a surgical guide and supporting a complete arch provisional prosthesis, and dates of TI placement and regular implant placement were collected. Descriptive statistics were used to determine the survival rate and success rate for TIs.
RESULTS: Twenty-six patients, 35 jaws, 136 TIs, and 216 regular implants were included. The survival rate of TIs was 74.26%; however, the use of TIs yielded success in 97% of jaws for supporting a surgical guide and a fixed complete-arch provisional prosthesis throughout the complete provisional phase. An average of 4 TIs per maxilla and 3 TIs per mandible supported surgical guides. Thirty-five provisional prostheses were placed on an average of 4 TIs in the maxilla and 3 TIs in the mandible. Thirty-four provisional prostheses were successfully supported by TIs and regular implants until final restoration delivery. The survival of regular implants placed in conjunction with the use of TIs was 98%.
CONCLUSIONS: Using TIs to support a surgical guide and provisional prosthesis may be a predictable approach with a high success rate. All surgical guides planned to be supported on TIs were successful. Despite premature loss or replacement of TIs, this approach was able to support most provisional prostheses until the regular implants could be loaded.
METHODS: Patients who received TIs between 2012 and 2023 for a complete arch implant-supported prosthesis were evaluated retrospectively. Patient demographic data, TI functionality in supporting a surgical guide and supporting a complete arch provisional prosthesis, and dates of TI placement and regular implant placement were collected. Descriptive statistics were used to determine the survival rate and success rate for TIs.
RESULTS: Twenty-six patients, 35 jaws, 136 TIs, and 216 regular implants were included. The survival rate of TIs was 74.26%; however, the use of TIs yielded success in 97% of jaws for supporting a surgical guide and a fixed complete-arch provisional prosthesis throughout the complete provisional phase. An average of 4 TIs per maxilla and 3 TIs per mandible supported surgical guides. Thirty-five provisional prostheses were placed on an average of 4 TIs in the maxilla and 3 TIs in the mandible. Thirty-four provisional prostheses were successfully supported by TIs and regular implants until final restoration delivery. The survival of regular implants placed in conjunction with the use of TIs was 98%.
CONCLUSIONS: Using TIs to support a surgical guide and provisional prosthesis may be a predictable approach with a high success rate. All surgical guides planned to be supported on TIs were successful. Despite premature loss or replacement of TIs, this approach was able to support most provisional prostheses until the regular implants could be loaded.