engleski

Conventional vs. implant-supported prosthetic treatment in lateral area – Case report

Conventional prosthetic treatment is often the dentist's first choice in reconstruction of the lateral area of the dental arch. However, sometimes an implant-supported prosthetic solution is narrowly indicated, as it is shown in the following case report. Clinical examination of a 43-year-old patient found missing tooth 16 and 14 with very short clinical tooth crowns and habitual occlusion without interferences. An implant-supported prosthetic treatment was recommended for the area 16 and 14, which the patient refused and visited another dentist. He made a bridge with tooth abutments at 17 and 15, pontic at 16 and mesial cantilever at 14. This bridge loosed 4 times in a year, the patient was not satisfied with it, and she returned to the first dentist and agreed to the implant-supported prosthetic treatment. In the area 14 a XIVE (Dentsply) implant (3.8/13) was placed with buccal augmentation of soft tissues and in the area 16 a XIVE (Dentsply) implant (4.5/11) with internal maxillary sinus floor elevation. During healing time of 3 months the patient wore a temporary acrylic bridge on the abutment teeth of the old bridge and satisfactory soft tissue emergence profile was achieved with pontic and cantilever. Impression was taken 14 days after the implant was opened and a gingiva former was placed. Standard abutments were used as implant build up, and 4 metal-ceramic crowns with functionally shaped occlusal surfaces were fabricated. Regular check-ups of the patient every 3 months and after 3 years showed excellent aesthetic and functional results.

Conventional prosthetic treatment; implant-supported prosthetic solution

nije evidentirano