Laboratory Fabrication of Full-Arch Implant-Supported Restorations
Success in full-mouth implant rehabilitation requires clear and concise communication between the dentist and the dental technician. It is the dentist’s responsibility to provide a complete prescription of what is required and the dental technician’s responsibility to ensure that the restoration is completed according to that prescription.
The clinician should provide accompanying information such as accurate impressions, jaw relation records and a facebow transfer.
The technician should provide accurate diagnostic and master casts together with attention to detail at each subsequent step so that chair-time is reduced for the treating clinician.
Developing a strong working relationship and harbouring a philosophy of teamwork will allow completion of treatment predictably and efficiently.
This chapter discusses three materials that are commonly used for full-arch implant rehabilitation from a laboratory perspective.
The authors would like to thank Juvora U.K. for technical information related to PEEK.
The authors would like to thank Amy, M Camba for clinical figures too.
The authors would like to thank Dr. Gerarad Chiche and the Department of Prosthodontics and Aesthetic Dentistry at Georgia Regents University.
- 1.Sereno N, Rosentritt M, Jarman-smith M, Lang R, Kolbeck C. In-vitro performance evaluation of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) implant prosthetics with a cantilever design. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26(S12):296.Google Scholar
- 3.Study conducted at Regensberg University, Germany on file at Invibio Dental, UKGoogle Scholar
- 4.Siewert B. Production of implant supported bridges from PEEK blanks. DZW Die ZahnarztWoche Digital. Dent News. 2013:22–31.Google Scholar
- 5.Tipton P, Siewert B. High performance polymers part 3. Private Dentistry UK. 2016.Google Scholar
- 6.Siewert B, Parra M. A new group of material in dentistry. PEEK as a framework material used in 12-piece implant-supported bridges. Z ZahnärztlImplantol. 2013;29:148–59.Google Scholar
- 7.Moura Guedes C. New possibilities for high performance polymers in the MALO clinic protocol. British Association of Restorative Dentistry Conference. 4–6 June 2016.Google Scholar
- 8.JUVORA. Processing guidance, technical certification instructions, Invibio Dental, UKGoogle Scholar
- 13.Wohrle PS, Cornell D. Contemporary maxillary implant—Supported Full-arch restorations combining esthetics and passive fit. QDT. 2008:1–17.Google Scholar
- 14.Stumpel L. JCDA. 1994;22(47):1–6.Google Scholar
- 15.Brozini T, Petridis H, Tzanas K, et al. A meta-analysis of prosthodontic complication rates of implant supported fixed dental prosthesis in edentulous patients after an observation period of at least 5 years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011;26:304–31.Google Scholar
- 22.Al-Meraikhi H, Chee W, Takanashi T. An alternative to traditional implant supported porcelain fused to metal restorations. Quintessenec Dent Technol. 2014;37:113–24.Google Scholar
- 23.Goldberg J, Torbati A, Aalam AA, Chee W. Implant supported full arch zirconia fixed dental prostheses for the rehabilitation of a patient with a failing dentistion. Qunintessenece Dent Technol. 2016;39:179–96.Google Scholar
- 28.Carames J, Tovar Suinaga L, YC Y, Perez A, Kang M. Clinical advantages and limitations of monolithic zirconia restorations full arch implant supported reconstructions case series. Int J Dent. 2015:392496.Google Scholar