Exceptional Cases Demand Exceptional Personalized Solutions: The Next Level in Dental Rehabilitation.

Nils-Claudius Gellrich, Philippe Korn, Philipp Jehn, Michael Neuhaus, Fritjof Lentge, Björn Rahlf
Author Information
  1. Nils-Claudius Gellrich: Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, D-30625 Hannover, Germany.
  2. Philippe Korn: Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, D-30625 Hannover, Germany. ORCID
  3. Philipp Jehn: Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, D-30625 Hannover, Germany.
  4. Michael Neuhaus: Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, D-30625 Hannover, Germany. ORCID
  5. Fritjof Lentge: Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, D-30625 Hannover, Germany. ORCID
  6. Björn Rahlf: Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, D-30625 Hannover, Germany.

Abstract

Defects and bone loss in the maxilla and mandible pose significant challenges for dental rehabilitation. This paper focuses on complex cases of bimaxillary dental rehabilitation, where traditional dental implant protocols were not feasible in at least one jaw. Four patients were examined conceptually, where conventional dental implant placement (n = 20) was combined in either the same or opposite jaw with a patient-specific subperiosteal implant (n = 5). This study evaluates aspects such as primary stability, prosthodontic restoration, complications, and soft tissue management over the observation period. None of the five patient-specific subperiosteal implants (IPS Implants Preprosthetic; KLS-Martin Group, Tuttlingen, Germany) experienced failure or showed any loosening of screws, with the longest observation period extending to 68 months. These implants were securely fixated away from the posts, without any biomechanical restrictions on loading from the time of insertion. Planning and manufacturing, including the initial suprastructure, followed a fully digital workflow. The number of screws required for multivector fixation ranged from 13 to 22. All dental implants placed remain functional, definitive prosthodontic restoration has been performed, and no stability loss or peri-implantitis has been observed. The IPS Implants Preprosthetic emerges as a valuable consideration when conventional implant dentistry protocols encounter limitations.

Keywords

References

  1. Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng. 2023 Feb;39(2):e3672 [PMID: 36541118]
  2. Minerva Dent Oral Sci. 2022 Dec;71(6):353-360 [PMID: 36345834]
  3. Innov Surg Sci. 2023 Dec 6;8(3):137-148 [PMID: 38077486]
  4. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr. 2014 Jun;7(2):158-66 [PMID: 25045420]
  5. Materials (Basel). 2023 Nov 30;16(23): [PMID: 38068210]
  6. J Pers Med. 2023 Feb 08;13(2): [PMID: 36836531]
  7. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018 Dec;119(6):523-525 [PMID: 29940264]
  8. Medicina (Kaunas). 2023 Mar 09;59(3): [PMID: 36984535]
  9. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2024 Apr;125(2):101674 [PMID: 37913993]
  10. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022 Feb;51(2):243-250 [PMID: 34074574]
  11. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013 Aug;71(8):1340-6 [PMID: 23866950]
  12. Diagnostics (Basel). 2022 Oct 19;12(10): [PMID: 36292220]
  13. Biomimetics (Basel). 2023 Jul 31;8(4): [PMID: 37622941]
  14. Front Oncol. 2021 Dec 10;11:718872 [PMID: 34956858]
  15. J Clin Med. 2021 Aug 12;10(16): [PMID: 34441837]
  16. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013 Sep-Oct;28(5):e221-9 [PMID: 24066339]
  17. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021 Sep;79(9):1944-1953 [PMID: 34029526]
  18. J Prosthet Dent. 2022 Oct 6;: [PMID: 36210190]
  19. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022 Mar;51(3):405-411 [PMID: 34059405]
  20. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 Aug;78(8):1320-1327 [PMID: 32404269]
  21. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2023 Nov 01;0(0):1-32 [PMID: 37910836]
  22. 3D Print Med. 2020 Jan 8;6(1):1 [PMID: 31915946]
  23. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022 Oct;123(5):562-565 [PMID: 34896647]
  24. Facial Plast Surg. 2021 Dec;37(6):722-727 [PMID: 34380165]
  25. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2023 Nov 3;43(6):735-741 [PMID: 37347616]
  26. J Oral Implantol. 2023 Jun 1;49(3):271-278 [PMID: 36796062]
  27. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2023 Mar;27(1):69-78 [PMID: 35119553]
  28. J Clin Med. 2022 Aug 06;11(15): [PMID: 35956210]
  29. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2023 Feb;124(1S):101290 [PMID: 36152972]
  30. Int J Implant Dent. 2022 Feb 2;8(1):6 [PMID: 35106688]
  31. J Clin Exp Dent. 2022 Mar 1;14(3):e293-e297 [PMID: 35317297]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0dentalimplantrehabilitationpatient-specificsubperiostealimplantsIPSlosscomplexprotocolsjawconventionaln=stabilityprosthodonticrestorationobservationperiodImplantsPreprostheticscrewsdigitalworkflowfixationExceptionalDefectsbonemaxillamandibleposesignificantchallengespaperfocusescasesbimaxillarytraditionalfeasibleleastoneFourpatientsexaminedconceptuallyplacement20combinedeitheropposite5studyevaluatesaspectsprimarycomplicationssofttissuemanagementNonefiveKLS-MartinGroupTuttlingenGermanyexperiencedfailureshowedlooseninglongestextending68monthssecurelyfixatedawaypostswithoutbiomechanicalrestrictionsloadingtimeinsertionPlanningmanufacturingincludinginitialsuprastructurefollowedfullynumberrequiredmultivectorranged1322placedremainfunctionaldefinitiveperformedperi-implantitisobservedemergesvaluableconsiderationdentistryencounterlimitationsCasesDemandPersonalizedSolutions:NextLevelDentalRehabilitationCAD/CAMimplants®preprostheticcomputer-assistedplanningrigidselectivelasermelting

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.