Main Article Content

Abstract

This clinical report describes a full mouth rehabilitation using implant-supported fixed prostheses in a 63 year-old completely edentulous female. The placement of the maxillary implants tended to result in improper angulation, prompting the use of dynamic abutments to correct the unfavorable orientation and ensure proper screw access for the final prosthesis. Definitive prostheses fabricated in monolithic zirconia were selected for durability, biocompatibility and pleasant optical properties. The full mouth rehabilitation process included creating diagnostic wax arrangements, taking impressions and occlusal adjustments to define and illustrate functional and aesthetic relationships. Definitive prostheses were finally seated with patient approval after positive comments about aesthetics and functionality, and a sense of satisfaction with the over-all final result. This clinical case displayed the possibility of dynamic abutments for non-axial implants and provided a successful functional, durable and aesthetic prosthesis with both advanced materials and technology. Ongoing follow-up care and regular maintenance for the patient may give the best possibility for establishing the long-term success of implant-supported restorations.

Keywords

Implant-Supported Prosthesis; Full Mouth Rehabilitation; Dynamic Abutments; Non-Axial Implants; Monolithic Zirconia; Screw-retained prosthesis

Article Details

How to Cite
Alotaibi, Y. (2025). Implant-Supported Full Mouth Rehabilitation Utilizing Dynamic Abutments for Non-Axial Implants. Journal of Contemporary Dental Sciences, 2(4), 1–7. Retrieved from https://jcds.qu.edu.sa/index.php/JCDS/article/view/2387

References

  1. Adel R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Brånemark PI. A15 year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg 1981;10:387-416.
  2. Priest G. Single-tooth implants and their role in preserving remaining teeth: a 10-year survival study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999; 14:181-188.
  3. Bidra AS. Three-dimensional esthetic analysis in treatment planning for implant-supported xed prosthesis in the edentulous maxilla: review of the esthetics literature. J Esthet Restor Dent 2011;23:219-36.
  4. Grunder U. Crestal ridge width changes when placing implants at the time of tooth extraction with and without soft tissue augmentation after a healing period of 6 months: report of 24 consecutive cases. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2011;31:9-17.
  5. Abdunabi A, Morris M, Nader SA, Souza RF. Impact of immediately loaded implant-supported maxillary full-arch dental prostheses: a systematic review. J Appl Oral Sci. 2019;27:e20180600
  6. Esposito M, Felice P, Worthington HV. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: augmentation procedures of the maxillary sinus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(5):CD008397.
  7. Staubli N, Walter C, Schmidt JC, Weiger R, Zitzmann NU. Excess cement and the risk of peri-implant disease - a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28:1278-90.
  8. Papavasileiou D, Behr M, Gosau M, Gerlach T, Buergers R. Peri-implant bio lm formation on luting agents used for cementing implant-supported xed restorations: a preliminary in vivo study. Int J Prosthodont 2015;28: 371-3.
  9. Buser D, Brägger U. Guidelines for the placement and restoration of implants in the anterior maxilla: Clinical concepts and technical considerations. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004;15(5):565-578.
  10. Berroeta E, et al. Dynamic abutment: a method of redirecting screw access for implant-supported restorations: technical details and a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;113(6):516-9.
  11. Esposito M, Worthington HV. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in zygomatic bone for the rehabilitation of the severely deficient edentulous maxilla. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;2013(12):CD008014.
  12. Totou D, Naka O, Mehta SB, Banerji S. Esthetic, mechanical, and biological outcomes of various implant abutments for single-tooth re-placement in the anterior region: a systematic review of the literature. Int J Implant Dent. 2021;7(1):1
  13. Martin WC, Pollini A, Morton D. The influence of restorative procedures on esthetic outcomes in implant dentistry: A systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29(Suppl):142–54
  14. Misawa, M., Lindhe, J., & Araújo, M. G. The alveolar process following single‐tooth extraction: a study of maxillary incisor and premo-lar sites in man. Clinical Oral Implants Research 2016;27:884-889.
  15. Berroeta E, Zabalegui I, Donovan T, Chee W. Dynamic abutment: a method of redirecting screw access for implant-supported restora-tions: technical details and a clinical report. J Prosthetic Dent 2015;113:516-9
  16. Larsson C, von Steyern PV. Implant-supported full-arch zirconia-based mandibular fixed dental prostheses: eight-year results from a clinical pilot study. Acta Odontol Scand 2013;71(5):1118-22.
  17. Sadid-Zadeh R, Liu PR, Aponte-Wesson R, O'Neal SJ. Maxillary cement retained implant supported monolithic zirconia prosthesis in a full mouth rehabilitation: a clinical report. J Adv Prosthodont 2013;5(2):209-17.
  18. Heintze SD, Rousson V. Survival of zirconia- and metal-supported fixed dental prostheses: a systematic review. Int J Prosthodont. 2010;23(6):493-502..
  19. Bergendal B, Palmqvist S. Laser-welded titanium frameworks for implant-supported fixed prostheses: a 5-year report. Int J Oral Maxil-lofac Implants 1999;14(1):69-71.
  20. Ortorp A, Jemt T. Clinical experiences of CNC-milled titanium frameworks supported by implants in the edentulous jaw: 1-year prospec-tive study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2000;2(1):2-9.
  21. Rojas-Vizcaya F. Full zirconia fixed detachable implant-retained restorations manufactured from monolithic zirconia: clinical report after two years in service. J Prosthodont 2011;20(7):570-6.