Next Article in Journal
Renal Consequences of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Term Neonates: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the DOHaD Perspective in the Prevention and Early Recognition of Neonates of GDM Mothers at Risk of Hypertension and Chronic Renal Diseases in Later Life
Next Article in Special Issue
Accuracy of Customized Prefabricated Screw-Type Immediate Provisional Restorations after Single-Implant Placement
Previous Article in Journal
Mechanical and Biological Advantages of a Tri-Oval Implant Design
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Peri-Implant Disease Risk Score for Patients with Dental Implants: Validation and the Influence of the Interval between Maintenance Appointments
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 8
Issue 4
10.3390/jcm8040428
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Case Report

Esthetic Rehabilitation of Maxillary Anterior Teeth, Including an Immediate Provisionalization with an Implant-Supported Fixed Dental Prosthesis

by
Kyung Chul Oh
1,
Jeongwon Paik
2 and
Jee-Hwan Kim
1,*
1
Department of Prosthodontics, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, Seoul 03722, Korea
2
Department of Periodontics, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, Seoul 03722, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2019, 8(4), 428; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm8040428
Submission received: 11 February 2019 / Revised: 21 March 2019 / Accepted: 25 March 2019 / Published: 28 March 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Implant Dentistry—Trends, Challenges and Innovations)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This report describes the case of a patient who required rehabilitation of their maxillary anterior teeth following a traumatic injury through a physical altercation. The decision was made to extract the maxillary central incisors and maxillary right lateral incisor, perform immediate implantation on the maxillary right lateral incisor and left central incisor areas, and place a three-unit immediate provisional restoration. Predesigned virtual teeth enabled efficient fabrication of the immediate provisional restoration following the implant placement. After a sufficient healing period with periodic check-ups, final impressions were made using a digital approach, with meticulous care taken to preserve the gingival architecture around the sites of rehabilitation. Thus, the custom abutments and definitive restoration were placed without eliciting an uncomfortable feeling in the patient. Both esthetic and functional outcomes were satisfactory. Reduced soft tissue volume around the implant restoration was observed, primarily within the two months post-extraction/implantation, based on superimposition of the serial scan data. Soft tissue volume changes in the present case suggest the need for controlled clinical studies of three-dimensional changes of gingival contours after extraction and/or implantation.

1. Introduction

The application and development of digital technologies have extended the scope of implant dentistry [1,2]. Radical improvements in diagnostic imaging devices, as well as computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) equipment, have enabled dentists to implement prosthetically-driven implant placement [3,4,5,6,7,8,9]. For many years, it has been recommended to perform a diagnostic wax-up procedure at the site of future implant placement, in order to achieve this “top-down” approach [10,11,12,13]. This procedure can now be completed by virtually arranging the teeth in implant-planning or CAD software [14,15]. Subsequent procedures following implant placement, such as making final impressions for implant prostheses, can also be performed by a digital approach with an intraoral scanner and a scan body [3,16].
Immediate placement of a fixed-type provisional crown following single-implant placement is regarded as a treatment option that is predictive of satisfactory outcomes, provided that the case selection is conducted appropriately [17,18,19]. This may benefit patients from an esthetic perspective, because it eliminates the edentulous stage. Moreover, when fabricated with an accurate three-dimensional (3D) position, the provisional crown can help to maintain the height of the interproximal papillae [20,21]. Immediate provisionalization using one-piece implants was suggested as a treatment strategy to restore partially edentulous anterior teeth in the mandible or lateral teeth in the maxilla, [22,23]. However, there have been few reports regarding the immediate placement of a fixed-type provisional restoration after multi-implant placement in the maxillary anterior tooth region [24]. Bone grafting around the gap between the immediately placed implant and the surrounding bone has been suggested to preserve soft tissue contours and buccal plate thickness [25]. With advances in digital technology, reverse engineering software can provide a comprehensive visualization of dimensional changes that may have occurred after extraction.
This report describes the rehabilitation of an anterior tooth region with multiple implants—including an immediate provisionalization with an implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis in a fully digital workflow—and demonstrates three-dimensional changes in gingival tissues around the sites of rehabilitation over a one-year period.

2. Case Report

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of Yonsei University Dental Hospital (2-2019-0006). An 18-year-old man requested rehabilitation of teeth that had experienced trauma on the maxillary arch after a physical altercation (Figure 1). Although he had received emergency root canal treatments on the maxillary central incisors and maxillary right lateral incisor within a few days of this event (approximately one month before his visit to our clinic) to relieve pain, these teeth exhibited a poor prognosis. The diagnosis was a Class III crown/root fracture on the maxillary right central and lateral incisors, and a Class III crown fracture with a horizontal root fracture on the maxillary left central incisor. Hence, the decision was made to extract these three teeth, perform immediate implantation on the maxillary right lateral incisor and left central incisor areas, and place a three-unit immediate provisional restoration.
The maxillary and mandibular diagnostic casts obtained from the preliminary impressions were scanned with a tabletop scanner (Identica Blue, Medit Co., Seoul, Korea) (Figure 2). The teeth that were to be extracted were removed from the maxillary diagnostic cast to arrange the virtual teeth within CAD software (Exocad DentalCAD version 2015.03, Exocad GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany). The virtual teeth were designed on the modified diagnostic cast to ensure that they exhibited no occlusal contacts with antagonists. Together with the remaining teeth on the same arch, the arranged virtual teeth were saved as a unit in a standard tessellation language (STL) file format. A cone-beam computed tomography scan was taken to design and fabricate a surgical guide. The guide was designed in the implant planning software (Implant Studio version 2.17.1.4, 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) and fabricated using a 3D printer (Zenith U, Dentis, Daegu, Korea).
Bone-level implants (Straumann BLT (Institut Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland) 4.1 × 12 mm implant on right lateral incisor area and Straumann BL (Institut Straumann AG) 4.1 × 12 mm implant on left central incisor area) were placed using a flapless approach. Subsequently, the scan bodies (Geo Scanbody, GeoMedi, Uiwang-si, Korea) were connected to the implants and digital intraoral impressions were made using an intraoral scanner (Trios 3, 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) (Figure 3). The gaps between the implants and bony walls were filled with a deproteinized bovine bone mineral (Bio-Oss, Geistlich Pharma AG, Wolhusen, Switzerland). A bioresorbable collagen membrane (Bio-Gide, Geistlich Pharma AG) was then carefully applied to cover the graft material [26]. For the future pontic (right central incisor) area, a ridge preservation technique was performed using a demineralized bovine bone mineral with 10% collagen (Bio-Oss Collagen, Geistlich Pharma AG) without primary soft tissue closure [27,28].
The provisional restoration was prepared during the time the periodontist was performing these supplementary procedures. A new project file was created in the same CAD software and the digital intraoral impressions were imported. The initially predesigned virtual teeth and modified maxillary diagnostic cast assembly were then imported into the software and superimposed over the digital intraoral impressions. The arbitrarily arranged virtual teeth, which appeared on the project file as a default function of the software, fit onto the predesigned virtual teeth to automatically find their predetermined positions by employing a series of software functions (Video S1). Minor adjustments were made to finalize the design of the provisional restoration.
Two sets of provisional restorations from the same design were prepared; they were milled with a poly(methylmethacrylate) resin block (VIPI Block Trilux, Dental VIPI Ltda, São Paulo, Brazil) and bonded to the titanium link abutments (Geo Multibase Abutment, GeoMedi, Uiwang-si, Korea) with a resin cement (Multilink N, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein). One set of restorations was placed in the patient’s mouth on the day of the implant surgery (Figure 4). This immediate provisional restoration was sufficiently adjusted to provide relief above the ridge preservation area and allow interpapillary growth. Most importantly, occlusion was evaluated and adjusted in order to avoid contacts with antagonists, which inevitably compromised the esthetics to some extent.
The other set of provisional restorations was placed in the patient’s oral cavity 2 months after the initial visit (Figure 5). At this time, minor adjustments were conducted for the restoration, which resulted in better esthetic outcomes. Final impressions were made in the digital approach, with meticulous and specific emphasis on preserving the gingival architecture around the sites of rehabilitation. Custom abutments and the definitive porcelain-veneered zirconia fixed dental prosthesis were fabricated and placed in the patient’s mouth (Figure 6). Both esthetic and functional outcomes were satisfactory.
To record the dimensional changes around the rehabilitated areas, digital intraoral impressions were made five times: immediately after extraction, and at 2, 4, 6, and 12 months after the date on which the extraction and implantation were performed; these corresponded to specific time points, as shown in Table 1. Soft tissue dimensional changes around the sites of rehabilitation were visualized as color maps using the best-fit alignment function in the reverse engineering software (Geomagic Control X version 2018.0.1, 3D Systems, Cary, NC, USA) (Figure 7).

3. Discussion

An appropriate future site for restoration was determined by performing diagnostic virtual tooth arrangements in the CAD software. These arrangements were reevaluated with respect to the relationship of the underlying alveolar bone in the implant planning software [15]. With regard to the immediate placement of provisional restorations, previous methods directly applied flowable composite resin onto the temporary abutment, or made impressions by using polyether or polyvinylsiloxane materials [29,30,31,32]. However, these methods may cause irritation to soft tissues and carry the risk of contamination because they involve manipulation around the surgical field.
In the present case, the immediate provisional restoration was produced without contact with conventional impression materials, which could minimize the risk of contamination. In addition, peri-implant soft tissues may have been less stimulated because the restoration was fabricated in a fully contoured form at a dental laboratory and did not require chairside relining.
Several techniques have been suggested to accurately transfer the peri-implant gingival tissue around the provisional restoration into the definitive cast [33,34,35,36,37,38,39]. In contrast to these physical methods, a digital approach was adopted in the present case. The intraoral impression was obtained first with the provisional restoration inserted state, followed by the trimming around the provisional restoration using a cutting tool in the software. Then, the peri-implant soft tissue impressions, with and without scan bodies, were added on to the previous digital intraoral impression. This procedure reduced the amount of time-dependent peri-implant tissue shrinkage [40]. The custom abutments and definitive restoration were placed without eliciting an uncomfortable feeling in the patient.
Considering the patient’s young age, future residual adult growth—which occurs very slowly over decades—may cause infraocclusion of the implant restoration [41,42,43]. Hence, the patient was informed of the need for maintenance adjustments and the potential requirement for a new prosthesis in the future. Chair time was reduced because of the comprehensive teamwork and the use of predesigned virtual teeth data.
The labial gingival contours clearly indicated reduced volume after extraction over the 1-year follow-up period in the present case, although efforts to rehabilitate the soft tissue contours were accompanied by implant placement. The most significant reduction in soft tissue contours occurred during the first 2 months postoperation. Controlled clinical studies are necessary to elucidate both short- and long-term changes of gingival contours after extraction and/or implantation.

4. Conclusions

The present report described the satisfactory rehabilitation of an anterior tooth region with multiple implants on which a provisional restoration was placed immediately after the surgery. The provisional restoration was easily fabricated by utilizing predesigned virtual teeth data in the CAD software. Dimensional changes around the sites of rehabilitation were visualized with reverse engineering software over a 1-year period, from the time of implant placement to the time 6 months after placement of the definitive restoration.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/8/4/428/s1, Video S1: Automatic fitting of the arbitrarily arranged virtual teeth onto the predesigned virtual teeth.

Funding

This study was funded by the Yonsei University College of Dentistry (6-2018-0014).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Van Noort, R. The future of dental devices is digital. Dent. Mater. 2012, 28, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Block, M.S. Dental implants: The last 100 years. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2018, 76, 11–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Patel, N. Integrating three-dimensional digital technologies for comprehensive implant dentistry. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2010, 141 (Suppl. S2), 20S–24S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Zimmermann, M.; Mehl, A.; Mormann, W.H.; Reich, S. Intraoral scanning systems—A current overview. Int. J. Comput. Dent. 2015, 18, 101–129. [Google Scholar]
  5. Marchack, C.B.; Chew, L.K. The 10-year evolution of guided surgery. J. Calif. Dent. Assoc. 2015, 43, 131–134. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  6. Sarment, D.P.; Sukovic, P.; Clinthorne, N. Accuracy of implant placement with a stereolithographic surgical guide. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2003, 18, 571–577. [Google Scholar]
  7. Deeb, G.R.; Allen, R.K.; Hall, V.P.; Whitley, D., 3rd; Laskin, D.M.; Bencharit, S. How accurate are implant surgical guides produced with desktop stereolithographic 3-dimentional printers? J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2017, 75, e2551–e2559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Nickenig, H.J.; Wichmann, M.; Hamel, J.; Schlegel, K.A.; Eitner, S. Evaluation of the difference in accuracy between implant placement by virtual planning data and surgical guide templates versus the conventional free-hand method-a combined in vivo-in vitro technique using cone-beam ct (part ii). J. Cranio Maxillofac. Surg. 2010, 38, 488–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Rangel, F.A.; Maal, T.J.J.; de Koning, M.J.J.; Bronkhorst, E.M.; Berge, S.J.; Kuijpers-Jagtman, A.M. Integration of digital dental casts in cone beam computed tomography scans-a clinical validation study. Clin. Oral Investig. 2018, 22, 1215–1222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Garber, D.A.; Belser, U.C. Restoration-driven implant placement with restoration-generated site development. Compend. Contin. Educ. Dent. 1995, 16, 798–802. [Google Scholar]
  11. Pesun, I.J.; Gardner, F.M. Fabrication of a guide for radiographic evaluation and surgical placement of implants. J. Prosthet. Dent. 1995, 73, 548–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Almog, D.M.; Torrado, E.; Meitner, S.W. Fabrication of imaging and surgical guides for dental implants. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2001, 85, 504–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kopp, K.C.; Koslow, A.H.; Abdo, O.S. Predictable implant placement with a diagnostic/surgical template and advanced radiographic imaging. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2003, 89, 611–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ritter, L.; Neugebauer, J.; Dreiseidler, T.; Rothamel, D.; Cizek, J.; Karapetian, V.E.; Mischkowski, R.A.; Bindl, A.; Zoller, J.E. 3D X-ray meets CAD/CAM dentistry: A novel procedure for virtual dental implant planning. Int. J. Comput. Dent. 2009, 12, 29–40. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  15. Lanis, A.; Alvarez Del Canto, O. The combination of digital surface scanners and cone beam computed tomography technology for guided implant surgery using 3shape implant studio software: A case history report. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2015, 28, 169–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Stimmelmayr, M.; Guth, J.F.; Erdelt, K.; Edelhoff, D.; Beuer, F. Digital evaluation of the reproducibility of implant scanbody fit—An in vitro study. Clin. Oral Investig. 2012, 16, 851–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Van Nimwegen, W.G.; Goene, R.J.; van Daelen, A.C.; Stellingsma, K.; Raghoebar, G.M.; Meijer, H.J. Immediate implant placement and provisionalisation in the aesthetic zone. J. Oral Rehabil. 2016, 43, 745–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. De Bruyn, H.; Raes, S.; Ostman, P.O.; Cosyn, J. Immediate loading in partially and completely edentulous jaws: A review of the literature with clinical guidelines. Periodontology 2014, 66, 153–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Levin, B.P. Immediate temporization of immediate implants in the esthetic zone: Evaluating survival and bone maintenance. Compend. Contin. Educ. Dent. 2011, 32, 58–60. [Google Scholar]
  20. Bruno, V.; Badino, M.; Sacco, R.; Catapano, S. The use of a prosthetic template to maintain the papilla in the esthetic zone for immediate implant placement by means of a radiographic procedure. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2012, 108, 394–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bruno, V.; O’Sullivan, D.; Badino, M.; Catapano, S. Preserving soft tissue after placing implants in fresh extraction sockets in the maxillary esthetic zone and a prosthetic template for interim crown fabrication: A prospective study. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2014, 111, 195–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sohn, D.S.; Bae, M.S.; Heo, J.U.; Park, J.S.; Yea, S.H.; Romanos, G.E. Retrospective multicenter analysis of immediate provisionalization using one-piece narrow-diameter (3.0-mm) implants. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2011, 26, 163–168. [Google Scholar]
  23. Lauritano, D.; Grassi, R.; di Stasio, D.; Lucchese, A.; Petruzzi, M. Successful mandible rehabilitation of lower incisors with one-piece implants. J. Med. Case Rep. 2014, 8, 406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Siadat, H.; Alikhasi, M.; Beyabanaki, E. Interim prosthesis options for dental implants. J. Prosthodont. 2017, 26, 331–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. AlKudmani, H.; Al Jasser, R.; Andreana, S. Is bone graft or guided bone regeneration needed when placing immediate dental implants? A systematic review. Implant. Dent. 2017, 26, 936–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Hammerle, C.H.; Lang, N.P. Single stage surgery combining transmucosal implant placement with guided bone regeneration and bioresorbable materials. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2001, 12, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Roccuzzo, M.; Gaudioso, L.; Bunino, M.; Dalmasso, P. Long-term stability of soft tissues following alveolar ridge preservation: 10-year results of a prospective study around nonsubmerged implants. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 2014, 34, 795–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Ackermann, K.L. Extraction site management using a natural bone mineral containing collagen: Rationale and retrospective case study. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 2009, 29, 489–497. [Google Scholar]
  29. Levin, B.P.; Wilk, B.L. Immediate provisionalization of immediate implants in the esthetic zone: A prospective case series evaluating implant survival, esthetics, and bone maintenance. Compend. Contin. Educ. Dent. 2013, 34, 352–361. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  30. Testori, T.; Galli, F.; Capelli, M.; Zuffetti, F.; Esposito, M. Immediate nonocclusal versus early loading of dental implants in partially edentulous patients: 1-year results from a multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2007, 22, 815–822. [Google Scholar]
  31. Schincaglia, G.P.; Marzola, R.; Giovanni, G.F.; Chiara, C.S.; Scotti, R. Replacement of mandibular molars with single-unit restorations supported by wide-body implants: Immediate versus delayed loading. A randomized controlled study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2008, 23, 474–480. [Google Scholar]
  32. Cooper, L.F.; Raes, F.; Reside, G.J.; Garriga, J.S.; Tarrida, L.G.; Wiltfang, J.; Kern, M.; de Bruyn, H. Comparison of radiographic and clinical outcomes following immediate provisionalization of single-tooth dental implants placed in healed alveolar ridges and extraction sockets. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2010, 25, 1222–1232. [Google Scholar]
  33. Hinds, K.F. Custom impression coping for an exact registration of the healed tissue in the esthetic implant restoration. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 1997, 17, 584–591. [Google Scholar]
  34. Buskin, R.; Salinas, T.J. Transferring emergence profile created from the provisional to the definitive restoration. Pract. Periodontics Aesthetic Dent. 1998, 10, 1171–1179; quiz 1180. [Google Scholar]
  35. Stumpel, L.J.; Haechler, W.; Bedrossian, E. Customized abutments to shape and transfer peri-implant soft-tissue contours. J. Calif. Dent. Assoc. 2000, 28, 301–309. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  36. Jansen, C.E. Guided soft tissue healing in implant dentistry. J. Calif. Dent. Assoc. 1995, 23, 57–58, 60, 62 passim. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  37. Chee, W.W.; Cho, G.C.; Ha, S. Replicating soft tissue contours on working casts for implant restorations. J. Prosthodont. 1997, 6, 218–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Neale, D.; Chee, W.W. Development of implant soft tissue emergence profile: A technique. J. Prosthet. Dent. 1994, 71, 364–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Elian, N.; Tabourian, G.; Jalbout, Z.N.; Classi, A.; Cho, S.C.; Froum, S.; Tarnow, D.P. Accurate transfer of peri-implant soft tissue emergence profile from the provisional crown to the final prosthesis using an emergence profile cast. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2007, 19, 306–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Joda, T. Time-dependent supraimplant mucosa changes: Short communication. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2015, 30, 619–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Zitzmann, N.U.; Arnold, D.; Ball, J.; Brusco, D.; Triaca, A.; Verna, C. Treatment strategies for infraoccluded dental implants. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2015, 113, 169–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Gotfredsen, K.; Carlsson, G.E.; Jokstad, A.; Arvidson Fyrberg, K.; Berge, M.; Bergendal, B.; Bergendal, T.; Ellingsen, J.E.; Gunne, J.; Hofgren, M.; et al. Implants and/or teeth: Consensus statements and recommendations. J. Oral Rehabil. 2008, 35 (Suppl. S1), 2–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Oesterle, L.J.; Cronin, R.J., Jr. Adult growth, aging, and the single-tooth implant. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2000, 15, 252–260. [Google Scholar]
Jcm 08 00428 g001 550
Figure 1. Clinical photographs and a periapical radiograph taken at the initial visit; (a) Frontal view; (b) Occlusal view; (c) Periapical radiograph.
Figure 1. Clinical photographs and a periapical radiograph taken at the initial visit; (a) Frontal view; (b) Occlusal view; (c) Periapical radiograph.
Jcm 08 00428 g001
Jcm 08 00428 g002 550
Figure 2. Diagnostic virtual tooth arrangement procedures in CAD software (Exocad DentalCAD version 2015.03, Exocad GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany); (a) Maxillary and mandibular diagnostic casts scanned with a tabletop scanner (Identica Blue, Medit Co., Seoul, Korea); (b) Modification of the sites planned for rehabilitation; (c) Design of the virtual teeth on the modified maxillary diagnostic cast. CAD, computer-aided design.
Figure 2. Diagnostic virtual tooth arrangement procedures in CAD software (Exocad DentalCAD version 2015.03, Exocad GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany); (a) Maxillary and mandibular diagnostic casts scanned with a tabletop scanner (Identica Blue, Medit Co., Seoul, Korea); (b) Modification of the sites planned for rehabilitation; (c) Design of the virtual teeth on the modified maxillary diagnostic cast. CAD, computer-aided design.
Jcm 08 00428 g002
Jcm 08 00428 g003 550
Figure 3. Digital intraoral impressions obtained with an intraoral scanner (Trios 3, 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) and scan bodies (Geo Scanbody, GeoMedi, Uiwang-si, Korea).
Figure 3. Digital intraoral impressions obtained with an intraoral scanner (Trios 3, 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) and scan bodies (Geo Scanbody, GeoMedi, Uiwang-si, Korea).
Jcm 08 00428 g003
Jcm 08 00428 g004 550
Figure 4. Placement of a set of provisional restorations immediately after implant surgery.
Figure 4. Placement of a set of provisional restorations immediately after implant surgery.
Jcm 08 00428 g004
Jcm 08 00428 g005 550
Figure 5. Placement of the other set of provisional restorations at 2 months postoperation.
Figure 5. Placement of the other set of provisional restorations at 2 months postoperation.
Jcm 08 00428 g005
Jcm 08 00428 g006 550
Figure 6. Clinical photographs and a periapical radiograph of the definitive porcelain-veneered zirconia fixed dental prosthesis; (a) Occlusal view after removal of the provisional restoration, showing healthy mucosa profiles; (b) Occlusal view after placement of the definitive restoration; (c) Frontal view after placement of the definitive restoration; (d) Periapical radiograph.
Figure 6. Clinical photographs and a periapical radiograph of the definitive porcelain-veneered zirconia fixed dental prosthesis; (a) Occlusal view after removal of the provisional restoration, showing healthy mucosa profiles; (b) Occlusal view after placement of the definitive restoration; (c) Frontal view after placement of the definitive restoration; (d) Periapical radiograph.
Jcm 08 00428 g006
Jcm 08 00428 g007 550
Figure 7. Soft tissue dimensional changes around sites of rehabilitation, shown as color maps using reverse engineering software (Geomagic Control X version 2018.0.1, 3D Systems, Cary, NC, USA); (a) Superimposition of the 2-month postoperative state over the state exhibited immediately after extraction (RMS: 757.6 μm); (b) Superimposition of the 4-month postoperative state over the 2-month postoperative state (RMS: 221.1 μm); (c) Superimposition of the 6-month postoperative state over the 2-month postoperative state (RMS: 286.7 μm); (d) Superimposition of the 1-year postoperative state over the 6-month postoperative state (RMS: 128.1 μm). RMS, Root mean square; (e) Color-scale bar showing maximum and minimum critical values of ± 1,000 μm.
Figure 7. Soft tissue dimensional changes around sites of rehabilitation, shown as color maps using reverse engineering software (Geomagic Control X version 2018.0.1, 3D Systems, Cary, NC, USA); (a) Superimposition of the 2-month postoperative state over the state exhibited immediately after extraction (RMS: 757.6 μm); (b) Superimposition of the 4-month postoperative state over the 2-month postoperative state (RMS: 221.1 μm); (c) Superimposition of the 6-month postoperative state over the 2-month postoperative state (RMS: 286.7 μm); (d) Superimposition of the 1-year postoperative state over the 6-month postoperative state (RMS: 128.1 μm). RMS, Root mean square; (e) Color-scale bar showing maximum and minimum critical values of ± 1,000 μm.
Jcm 08 00428 g007
Table
Table 1. Time points at which digital intraoral impressions were made.
Table 1. Time points at which digital intraoral impressions were made.
Digital Intraoral ImpressionsFirstSecondThirdFourthFifth
Time pointsImmediately after extraction2 months after implant placement4 months after implant placement6 months after implant placement1 year after implant placement
Treatments providedExtraction, immediate implant placement, and immediate provisionalizationExchange of provisional restorationFinal impression-makingPlacement of definitive restorationRoutine follow-up

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Oh, K.C.; Paik, J.; Kim, J.-H. Esthetic Rehabilitation of Maxillary Anterior Teeth, Including an Immediate Provisionalization with an Implant-Supported Fixed Dental Prosthesis. J. Clin. Med. 2019, 8, 428. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm8040428

AMA Style

Oh KC, Paik J, Kim J-H. Esthetic Rehabilitation of Maxillary Anterior Teeth, Including an Immediate Provisionalization with an Implant-Supported Fixed Dental Prosthesis. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2019; 8(4):428. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm8040428

Chicago/Turabian Style

Oh, Kyung Chul, Jeongwon Paik, and Jee-Hwan Kim. 2019. "Esthetic Rehabilitation of Maxillary Anterior Teeth, Including an Immediate Provisionalization with an Implant-Supported Fixed Dental Prosthesis" Journal of Clinical Medicine 8, no. 4: 428. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm8040428

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop