Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Implant Provisionalization: The Key to Definitive Aesthetic Success

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Implant Aesthetics

  • 2373 Accesses

Abstract

Developing implant aesthetics can be elusive to many clinicians. Too often we see practitioners jumping from the implant uncovery to the definitive restoration, only to be questioned by themselves, the patient or their referring colleague: ‘why does it not look correct’ or ‘why does it not feel right when I bite?’ There is no doubt that the fabrication of a provisional implant-supported restoration is a costly procedure both in clinical time and additional cost to the patient. However, when it is avoided, for any reason, there often are complications with the final prosthesis. One must think of the provisional restoration as the prototype from which the definitive restoration evolves; ideally the only difference being is the material from which each is fabricated. Aesthetics and function are always established in this relatively inexpensive plastic material prior to the investment of time and effort being put into the definitive restoration.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abrahamson I, Berglundh T, Lindhe J (1997) The mucosal barrier following abutment dis/reconnection. An experimental study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol 24(8):568–572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Juboori MJ, Bin Abdulrahaman S, Jassan A (2012) Comparison of flapless and conventional flap and the effect on crestal bone resorption during a 12-week healing period. Dent Implantol Updat 23(2):9–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Nsour MM, Chan HL, Wang HL (2012) Effect of the platform- switching technique on preservation of peri-implant marginal bone: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 27(1):138–145

    Google Scholar 

  • Annibali S, Bignozzi I, Cristalli MP, Graziani F, La Monaca G, Polimeni A (2012) Peri-implant marginal bone level: a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing platform switching versus conventionally restored implants. J Clin Periodontal 30(11):1097–1113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Block MS, Mercante DE, Lirette D, Mohamed W, Ryser M, Castellon P (2009) Prospective evaluation of immediate and delayed provisional single tooth restorations. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 67(11 Suppl):89–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broggini N, McManus LM, Hermann JS, Medina R, Schenk RK, Buser D, Cochran DL (2006) Peri- implant inflammation defined by the implant-abutment interface. J Dent Res 85(5):473–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buser D, Chappuis V, Bornstein MM, Wittneben JG, Frei M, Belser UC (2013) Long-term stability of contour augmentation with early implant placement following single tooth extraction in the esthetic zone: a prospective, cross-sectional study in 41 patients with a 5- to 9-year follow-up. J Periodontol 84(11):1517–1527

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang CL, Chen CS, Hsu ML (2010) Biomechanical effect of platform switching in implant dentistry: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 25(2):295–304

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cochran D, Mau LP, Higginbottom F et al (2013) Soft and hard tissue histologic dimensions around dental implants in the canine restored with smaller-diameter abutments: a paradigm shift in peri-implant biology. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 28:494–502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cumbo C, Marigo L, Somma F, La Torre G, Minciacchi I, D’Addona A (2013) Implant platform switching concept: a literature review. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 17(3):392–397

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Degiudi M, Nardi D, Piattelli A (2011) One abutment at one time: non-removal of an immediate abutment and its effect on bone healing around subcrestal tapered implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 22(11):1303–1307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Degiudi M, Piattelli A, Gehrke P, Felice P, Carinci F (2006) Five-year outcome of 111 immediate nonfunctional single restorations. J Oral Implantol 32(6):277–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Degiudi M, Piattelli A, Shibli JA, Strocchi R, Iezzi G (2009) Bone formation around a dental implant with a platform switching and another with a tissue care connection: a histologic and histomorphometric evaluation in man. Titanium 1(1):8–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Donovan R, Fetner A, Koutouzis T, Lundgren T (2010) Crestal bone changes around implants with reduced abutment diameter placed non-submerged and at subcrestal positions: a 1-year radiographic evaluation. J Periodontol 81(3):428–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elian N, Bloom M, Dard M, Cho SC, Trushkowsky RD, Tarnow D (2014) Radiological and micro-computed tomography analysis of the bone at dental implants inserted 2, 3 and 4 mm apart in a mining model with platform switching incorporated. Clin Oral Implants Res 25(2):22–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feitosa PP, de Lima AB, Silva-Concilio LR, Brandt WC, Neves AC (2013) Stability of external and internal implant connections after a fatigue test. Eur J Dent 7:267–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gargiolo AW, Wentz FM, Orban B (1961) Dimensions and relations of the dentogingival junction in humans. J Periodontol 32:261–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grütter L, Belser UC (2009) Implant loading protocols for the partially edentulous esthetic zone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 24 Suppl:169–179

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hartman GA, Cochran DL (2004) Initial implant position determines the magnitude of crestal bone remodeling. J Periodontol 75:572–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hermann JS, Cochran DL, Nummikoski PV, Buser D (1997) Crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A radiographic evaluation of unloaded non-submerged and submerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 68:1117–1130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hermann JS, Schoolfield JD, Nummikoski PV, Buser D, Schenk RK, Cochran DL (2001) Crestal bone changes around titanium implants: a methodologic study comparing linear radiographic with histometric measurements. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 16(4):475–485

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen VK, Conrads G, Richter EJ (1997) Microbial leakage and marginal fit of the implant-abutment interface. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 12:527–540

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jeong SM, Choi BH, Li J, Kin HS, Ko CY, Jung JH, Lee HJ, Lee SH, Engelke W (2007) Flapless implant surgery: an experimental study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 104(1):24–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karateew ED (2014) Mac and Zac: clinical protocols for predictable implant aesthetics. Dentistry Today 33(9):90–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Koutouzis T, Wallet S, Calderon N, Lindgren T (2011) Bacterial colonization of the implant-abutment interface using an in vitro dynamic loading model. J Periodontol 82(4):613–618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krebs M, Schmenger K, Meumann K, Weigl P, Moser W, Nentwig GH (2013) Long- term evaluation of Ankylos dental implants, part 1: 20-year life table analysis of a longitudinal study of more than 12,500 implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 17:e275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mangano C, Mangano F, Piattelli A, Iezzi G, La Colla L, Mangano A (2008) Single- tooth Morse taper connection implants after 1 year of functional loading: a multicenter study on 302 patients. Eur J Oral Implatol 1(4):305–315

    Google Scholar 

  • Mangano C, Mangano F, Piattelli A, Iezzi G, Mangano A, La Colla L (2009) Prospective clinical evaluation of 1920 Morse taper connection implants: results after 4 years of functional loading. Clin Oral Implants Res 20(3):254–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mangano C, Mangano F, Shibli JA, Tettamanti L, Figliuzzi M, d’Avila S, Sammons RL, Piatelli A (2011) Prospective evaluation of 2,549 Morse taper connection implants: 1- to 6-year data. J Periodontol 82(1):52–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quiryen M, Van Steenberghe D (1993) Bacterial colonization of the internal part of two stage implants. An in vivo study. Clin Oral Implants Res 4:158–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez-Ciurana X, Rodado-Alonso C, Selala-Torres M (2006) Benefits of an implant platform modification technique to reduce crestal bone resorption. Implant Dent 15:313–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romanos GE (2004) Present status of immediate loading of oral implants. J Oral Implantol 30(3):189–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salama H. One abutment/one time. dentalXP.com, May 2011.

  • Tarnow DP, Cho SC, Wallace SS (2000) The effect of inter-implant distance on the height of inter-implant bone crest. J Periodontol 71:546–549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tesmer M, Wallet S, Koutouzis T, Lundgren T (2009) Bacterial colonization of the dental implant fixture-abutment interface: an in vitro study. J Periodontol 80(12):1991–1997

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Testori T, Galli F, Capelli M, Zuffetti F, Esposito M (2007) 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 Implants 22(5):815–822

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vela X, Mendez V, Rodriguez X, Segala M, Tarnow DP (2012) Crestal bone changes on platform-switched implants and adjacent teeth when the tooth-implant distance is less than 1.5 mm. Int J Periodontics Restor Dent 32(2):149–155

    Google Scholar 

  • Wadhwani C, Hess T, Pineyro A, Opler R, Chung K-H (2012) Cement application techniques in luting implant-supported crowns: a quantitative and qualitative survey. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 27:859–864

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wang Y, Kan J, Rungcharassaeng K, Roe P, Lozada J (2015) Marginal bone response of implant with platform switching and non-platform switching in posterior healed sites: a 1-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 26(2):220–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weng D, Nagata MJH, Bosco AF, de Melo LGN (2011) Influence of microgap location and configuration on radiographic bone loss around submerged implants: an experimental study in dogs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 26:941–946

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wittneben JG, Buser D, Belser UC, Brägger U (2013) Peri-implant soft tissue conditioning with provisional restorations in the esthetic zone: the dynamic compression technique. Int J Periodontics Restor Dent 33(4):447–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zarb GA, Schmitt A (1990) The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants: the Toronto study. Part 1: surgical results. J Prosthet Dent 63:451–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Advanced Education in Periodontics, University of Illinois at Chicago, 801 South Paulina Avenue, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA

    Edward Dwayne Karateew DDS

Authors
  1. Edward Dwayne Karateew DDS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edward Dwayne Karateew DDS .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Advanced Education in Periodontics, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

    Edward Dwayne Karateew

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Dwayne Karateew, E. (2017). Implant Provisionalization: The Key to Definitive Aesthetic Success. In: Karateew, E. (eds) Implant Aesthetics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50706-4_19

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50706-4_19

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-50704-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-50706-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation