Laboratory Fabrication of Full-Arch Implant-Supported Restorations

  • Kenji MizunoEmail author
  • Aram Torosian
  • Saj Jivraj
Part of the BDJ Clinician’s Guides book series (BDJCG)


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 Dr. Bernd Siewert, Clinica Somosaguas, E-28223 Madrid, Spain for Figs. 13.9, 13.10, 13.11, 13.12, 13.13, 13.14, 13.15 and 13.16.

The authors would like to thank Juvora U.K. for technical information related to PEEK.

The authors would like to thank Drs. Udatta Kher and Ali Tunkiwala for Figs. 13.17 and 13.18 . Surgery performed by Dr. Udatta Kher Prosthodontics by Dr. Ali Tunkiwala.

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. 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
  2. 2.
    Conserva E, et al. The use of a masticatory robot to analyze the shock absorption capacity of different restorative materials for prosthetic implants: a preliminary report. Int J Prosthodont. 2009;22(1):53–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Study conducted at Regensberg University, Germany on file at Invibio Dental, UKGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Siewert B. Production of implant supported bridges from PEEK blanks. DZW Die ZahnarztWoche Digital. Dent News. 2013:22–31.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tipton P, Siewert B. High performance polymers part 3. Private Dentistry UK. 2016.Google Scholar
  6. 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. 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. 8.
    JUVORA. Processing guidance, technical certification instructions, Invibio Dental, UKGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kern, M., Lehmann, F. Influence of surface conditioning on bonding to polyetheretherketone (PEEK). Dent Mater 2012;28:1280–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schmidlin PR, Stawarczyk B, Wieland M, Attin T, Hämmerle CH, Fischer J. Effect of different surface pre-treatments and luting materials on shear bond strength to PEEK. Dent Mater. 2010;26:553–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Keul C, Liebermann A, Schmidlin PR, Roos M, Sener B, Bogna S. Influence of PEEK surface modification on surface properties and bond strength to veneering resin composites. J Adhes Dent. 2014;16:383–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Branemark PI, Hansson BO, Adell R, et al. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-year period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Suppl. 1977;16:1–132.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wohrle PS, Cornell D. Contemporary maxillary implant—Supported Full-arch restorations combining esthetics and passive fit. QDT. 2008:1–17.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stumpel L. JCDA. 1994;22(47):1–6.Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. 16.
    Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Chuang SK, Weber HP, Galluci GOA. systematic review of biologic and technical complications with fixed implant rehabilitations for edentulous patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012;27:102–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Branemark PI, Svensson B, Van Steenberghe D. Ten-year survival rates of fixed prosthesis on four or six implants ad modum Branemark in full edentulism. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1995;6:227–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Drago C, Howell K. Concepts for designing and fabricating metal implant frameworks for hybrid implant prostheses. J Prosthodont. 2012;21:413–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Drago C. Cantilever lengths and anterior-posterior spreads of interim, acrylic resin, full-arch screw-retained prostheses and their relationship to prosthetic complications. J Prosthodont. 2017;26(6):502–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moscovitch M. Consecutive case series of monolithic and minimally veneered zirconia restorations on teeth and implants. Upto 68 months 5-year results. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2015;35:315–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Venezia P, Torsello F, Cavalacanti R, D’Amato S. Retrospective analysis of 26 complete arch monolithic zirconia prosthesis with feldspathic porcelain veneering limited to the facial surface. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;114:506–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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. 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
  24. 24.
    Menini M, Pera F, Migliorati M, Pesce P, Pera P. Adhesive strength of the luting technique for passively fitting screw retained implant supported prosthesis: an in vitro evaluation. Int J Prosthodont. 2015;281:37–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cheng CW, Chen CH, Chen CJ, Papaspyridakos P. Complete mouth implant rehabilitation with modified monolithic zirconia implant supported fixed dental prostheses and an immediate loading protocol. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;109:347–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rojas- Vizcaya F. Retrospective 2 to 7 year follow up study of 20 full arch implant supported monolithic zirconia fixed prosthesis. Measurements and recommendations for an optimal design. J Prosthodont. 2016. Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chang JS, Ji W, Choi CH, Kim S. Catastrophic failure of a monolithic zirconia prostheses. J prosthet Dent. 2015;2015(113):86–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Anacapa Dental Art InstituteOxnardUSA
  2. 2.Ronald Goldstein Center for Esthetic and Implant DentistryDental College of Georgia at Augusta UniversityAugustaGeorgia
  3. 3.Herman Ostrow USC School of DentistryLos AngelesUSA
  4. 4.Eastmann Dental InstituteLondonUK
  5. 5.Private PracticeOxnardUSA

Personalised recommendations