In an article about how to use pre-existing implants in redesigning a full arch reconstruction, we discussed how the treating team is often torn between keeping or removing pre-existing implants—and the importance of doing a thorough assessment to decide whether pre-existing implants are suitable to be reincorporated into a new comprehensive restorative design or not.

We discussed the importance of assessing:

  • Biologic parameters (bone loss/presence of active infection)
  • Structural parameters (type of implant, integrity of connection, etc.)
  • Esthetic parameters (4Dimensional implant position)

If and when you decide to carry on and utilize pre-existing implants, your next crucial decision involves figuring out if the implant-supported components—including abutments, framework, screws—are suitable to be reutilized during the upcoming phase of treatment.

Expediting provisionalization with pre-existing implant components

The case below illustrates a great clinical example of when such components can be of substantial help during the provisionalization phase of a comprehensive treatment.

Utilizing the pre-existing substructure of two implant-supported fixed partial dentures allowed our team to expedite provisionalization as well as mitigate the cost involving prosthetic components.

Smile of the patient during initial presentation.
Figure 1: Smile of the patient during initial presentation.
Intraoral view during initial presentation.
Figure 2: Intraoral view during initial presentation.
Intraoral view during initial presentation.
Figure 3: Intraoral view during initial presentation.
Close up of the maxillary anterior sextant; note the discrepancy on the incisal/occlusal plane.
Figure 4: Close up of the maxillary anterior sextant; note the discrepancy on the incisal/occlusal plane.
Lateral view of the patient; note the inclination of the anterior teeth.
Figure 5: Lateral view of the patient; note the inclination of the anterior teeth.
Periapical images and CBCT images of the anterior teeth, note the poor adaptation of the restorations and the biological damage.
Figure 6: Periapical images and CBCT images of the anterior teeth, note the poor adaptation of the restorations and the biological damage.

The patient presented to our office dissatisfied with the overall esthetics and function of the maxillary anterior teeth, she had 2 maxillary implant supported screw retained FPD and upon further clinical examination the maxillary anterior teeth that were present had extensive structural and biological breakdown and were deemed unrestorable (Fig. 1 – Fig. 6).

Wax-up of the maxillary arch with correction of the esthetic concerns and a lab fabricated shell provisional.
Figure 7: Wax-up of the maxillary arch with correction of the esthetic concerns and a lab fabricated shell provisional.

Upon extraoral and intraoral careful examination, it was decided to change the overall contours to provide a more pleasing/harmonious result, as there were clearly noticeable discrepancies in both the incisal plane as well as gingival outline.

Thus, a wax-up of the maxillary arch was made and a shell provisional was fabricated in the lab (Fig. 7). As in any comprehensive treatment, the next phase of therapy entailed the provisionalization phase.

Being that the patient presented with five external hex implants (Fig. 8) with an overall acceptable distribution within the maxillary arch to support a full arch splinted provisional restoration, the question here was this: Can we utilize some components of the pre-existing fixed partial dentures to aid such provisional restoration?

If the answer was no, we would've then needed to buy five temporary abutments and do a pick-up protocol during the full arch provisional shell reline or fabricate a new provisional in the laboratory.

In this case, however, we were required to redesign the full arch reconstruction. Nonetheless, we were able to strip the layering ceramics from the framework and keep the metal frameworks along with their corresponding screws as the means to connect the provisional to the implants in the sturdiest and relatively effortless approach (Fig. 9).

We then proceeded to opaque the metal frameworks and secured them back in place, the coronal portion of the three natural teeth was amputated to carry out the reline of the provisional shell, letting it to set intraorally, thus ensuring that the frameworks were then captured within the acrylic reline.

This not only provided the means to connect the provisional to the implants, but the framework provided a robust structural reinforcement which ensured biomechanical stability during the healing and osseointegration phase of the newly placed implant (Fig. 10 – Fig. 14).

Moreover, once the roots of the anterior teeth where extracted, the provisional was secured in its place and it served as a sturdy and stable surgical template which allowed for an ideal 4-dimensional placement of the anterior implant—mesial-distal, buccal-lingual, apical-coronal and angulation (Fig. 15 and Fig. 16).

The implant supported provisional was finalized and polished and it was delivered to the patient after the extractions of the remaining maxillary teeth was performed and the implant was placed in the position of #8 (Fig. 17 and Fig. 18). It can be appreciated that the esthetic concerns of the patient were addressed during the wax-up and successfully incorporated in this new provisional (Fig. 19).

After a few weeks, the patient returned for a post-op appointment. This appointment made it clear that the provisional was performing well and the soft tissues were supported in the pontic areas (Fig. 20).

Occlusal view of the definitive restorations that the patient had, note the access holes for the implants.
Figure 8: Occlusal view of the definitive restorations that the patient had, note the access holes for the implants.
PFM implant supported fixed partial dentures before and after the removal of the layering porcelain.
Figure 9: PFM implant supported fixed partial dentures before and after the removal of the layering porcelain.
The coronal portion of the 3 remaining maxillary teeth was amputated to allow the reline of the provisional.
Figure 10: The coronal portion of the 3 remaining maxillary teeth was amputated to allow the reline of the provisional.
Metal frameworks were opaqued and tried in the shell provisional.
Figure 11: Metal frameworks were opaqued and tried in the shell provisional.
Opaqued metal frameworks were secured in place.
Figure 12: Opaqued metal frameworks were secured in place.
Shell provisional was tried in.
Figure 13: Shell provisional was tried in.
The shell provisional was relined and the metal frameworks were picked up during the reline procedure.
Figure 14: The shell provisional was relined and the metal frameworks were picked up during the reline procedure.
Extraction of the maxillary anterior teeth was performed.
Figure 15: Extraction of the maxillary anterior teeth was performed.
Straumann BLT was placed in the area of #8 using the provisional as a fixed surgical guide.
Figure 16: Straumann BLT was placed in the area of #8 using the provisional as a fixed surgical guide.
Finalized implant supported provisional utilizing the metal frameworks.
Figure 17: Finalized implant supported provisional utilizing the metal frameworks.
Buccal and occlusal view of the new provisional restoration.
Figure 18: Buccal and occlusal view of the new provisional restoration.
Original definitive restorations on the upper and new provisional prosthesis delivered after surgery on the lower.
Figure 19: Original definitive restorations on the upper and new provisional prosthesis delivered after surgery on the lower.
Buccal view four weeks after surgery.
Figure 20: Buccal view four weeks after surgery.

Finalizing comprehensive rehabilitation

As mentioned earlier, an additional implant was placed in the area of tooth number 8, immediately after extraction. Since there was enough support from the previous implants, our team decided to utilize a delayed loading approach and the area was managed with ovate pontics.

Once time was allotted for osseointegration (10 weeks) we proceeded to perform a minimally invasive uncovering protocol utilizing an iPlus Waterlase unit from Biolase. A temporary abutment was secured onto the implant followed by radiographic verification that it was fully seated.

The provisional restoration was then perforated at the site of the implant and the temporary cylinder was then adjusted, opaqued and picked up utilizing light polymerizing flowable composite utilizing the same technique described earlier in this article.

At this point, the transmucosal contours of the provisional were carefully conformed utilizing a light polymerizing flowable composite, followed by polishing with rubber wheels. Once the gingival topography was stable, an implant level impression was made and a prototype of the definitive restoration was fabricated.

The old mandibular porcelain fused to metal crowns were removed on the mandibular anterior teeth and a provisional restoration was relined and trimmed. The posterior teeth were minimally prepped for onlays and impression and jaw relation records were taken, allowing the ceramist to finalize the comprehensive reconstruction.

Buccal and occlusal view of the pontic areas after tissue maturation.
Figure 21: Buccal and occlusal view of the pontic areas after tissue maturation.
Minimally invasive implant uncover was performed utilizing Biolase iPlus.
Figure 22: Minimally invasive implant uncover was performed utilizing Biolase iPlus.
The temporary cylinder was picked up and flowable composite was used to conform the transmucosal contours.
Figure 23: The temporary cylinder was picked up and flowable composite was used to conform the transmucosal contours.
Rubber wheels were used to polish and finalize the transmucosal contours.
Figure 24: Rubber wheels were used to polish and finalize the transmucosal contours.
View of the finalized transmucosal contours before insertion.
Figure 25: View of the finalized transmucosal contours before insertion.
Buccal and occlusal views of the provisional after the pick-up procedure of the new implant with radiographic confirmation.
Figure 26: Buccal and occlusal views of the provisional after the pick-up procedure of the new implant with radiographic confirmation.
Old mandibular PFM were removed and a provisional restoration was relined and trimmed.
Figure 27: Old mandibular PFM were removed and a provisional restoration was relined and trimmed.
Original definitive restorations that the patient presented on the left and new provisionals on the right.
Figure 28: Original definitive restorations that the patient presented on the left and new provisionals on the right.
PMMA CAD/CAM implant supported prototype on the master cast and smile picture of the patient to assess the esthetics.
Figure 29: PMMA CAD/CAM implant supported prototype on the master cast and smile picture of the patient to assess the esthetics.
Occlusal views of the mandibular arch: Initial presentation, preparations, definitive restorations on the master cast, definitive restorations delivered.
Figure 30: Occlusal views of the mandibular arch: Initial presentation, preparations, definitive restorations on the master cast, definitive restorations delivered.
Definitive minimally layered zirconia implant supported prosthesis.
Figure 31: Definitive minimally layered zirconia implant supported prosthesis.
Buccal view of the maxillary implant supported prosthesis during insertion.
Figure 32: Buccal view of the maxillary implant supported prosthesis during insertion.
Occlusal view of the maxillary implant supported prosthesis during insertion.
Figure 33: Occlusal view of the maxillary implant supported prosthesis during insertion.
Occlusal view of maxillary and mandibular definitive prosthesis.
Figure 34: Occlusal view of maxillary and mandibular definitive prosthesis.
Buccal view of maxillary and mandibular definitive prosthesis.
Figure 35: Buccal view of maxillary and mandibular definitive prosthesis.
Lateral view of maxillary and mandibular definitive prosthesis.
Figure 36: Lateral view of maxillary and mandibular definitive prosthesis.
Original definitive restorations that the patient presented on the left and new definitive restorations on the right.
Figure 37: Original definitive restorations that the patient presented on the left and new definitive restorations on the right.
 Original definitive restorations that the patient presented on the left and new definitive restorations on the right.
Figure 38: Original definitive restorations that the patient presented on the left and new definitive restorations on the right.


Ricardo Mitrani, D.D.S., M.S.D., is a member of Spear Resident Faculty.



Comments

Commenter's Profile Image Ali A.
November 26th, 2021
Smart and efficient. Great job Dr. Mitrani