The use of prefabricated titanium tissue abutments for the construction of a maxillary subperiosteal implant.

This article presents a bimodal procedure for a patient with an implant-supported fixed partial denture (FP2 class of Misch) where endosteal implants (EOIs) and a subperiosteal implant (SPI) were indicated in different sections of the same arch. In edentulous patients, heterogeneous bone volume and density may be encountered in different regions of the same arch. When the available bone is favorable, the use of EOIs is simpler and less time consuming. An SPI is indicated when the available bone is severely resorbed, as in the type I division C, type II divisions C and D, and type III divisions C and D. The main advantage of the described combined technique is that it offers an alternative to invasive surgeries such as iliac crest bone grafts or various surgical augmentation procedures. The second advantage is the very brief healing period after insertion of the SPI before prosthetic loading. Planning, design, laboratory construction, surgical application, and prosthetic rehabilitation for bimodal implant treatment are described. Prefabricated titanium tissue abutments are used in the fabrication of the posts of the anterior titanium SPI. Titanium tissue abutments are placed in the waxup stage of the SPI before the casting of the titanium SPI. Posterior fixtures are EOIs. An anterior SPI with 4 posts and 4 posterior EOIs provides a combination of support for the screw-retained fixed maxillary denture of Misch's FP2.

[1]  I. Sîrbu Subperiosteal implant technology: report from Rumania. , 2003, The Journal of oral implantology.

[2]  J. Minichetti Analysis of HA-coated subperiosteal implants. , 2003, The Journal of oral implantology.

[3]  N. Josefovici Report from Israel. , 2002, The Journal of oral implantology.

[4]  R. Mansueto Replacement of a mandibular subperiosteal implant. , 1999, The Journal of oral implantology.

[5]  T. Shen The use of different implant modalities in the atrophied ridge. , 1999, The Journal of oral implantology.

[6]  C. Misch Endosteal implants for posterior single tooth replacement: alternatives, indications, contraindications, and limitations. , 1999, The Journal of oral implantology.

[7]  L. Linkow,et al.  Critical design errors in maxillary subperiosteal implants. , 1998, The Journal of oral implantology.

[8]  E. Demirdjan The complete maxillary subperiosteal implant: an overview of its evolution. , 1998, The Journal of oral implantology.

[9]  E. M. Amet Computerized tomography with CT models for contemporary ramus frame implant planning and construction. , 1998, The Journal of oral implantology.

[10]  H. Sussman,et al.  Periapical implant pathology. , 1998, The Journal of oral implantology.

[11]  A N Cranin,et al.  An in vitro comparison of the computerized tomography/CAD-CAM and direct bone impression techniques for subperiosteal implant model generation. , 1998, The Journal of oral implantology.

[12]  L. A. Campbell Use of bone grafting in the management of a troublesome operative site planned for future implant restoration. , 1998, The Journal of oral implantology.

[13]  T. Jemt,et al.  Implant treatment in resorbed edentulous upper jaws , 1993 .

[14]  D A Fagan,et al.  Diagnosis and treatment planning. , 1986, The Veterinary clinics of North America. Small animal practice.

[15]  Kenneth P. Austin Diagnosis and treatment planning , 1956 .

[16]  L. Linkow,et al.  Ramus hinges for excessive movements of the condyles: a new dimension in mandibular tripodal subperiosteal implants. , 1999, The Journal of oral implantology.

[17]  J. Wagner,et al.  Tripodal mandibular subperiosteal implant: basic sciences, operational procedures, and clinical data. , 1998, The Journal of oral implantology.

[18]  J. Sconzo The complete mandibular subperiosteal implant: an overview of its evolution. , 1998, The Journal of oral implantology.