Subperiosteal İmplant Destekli Hastaya Özel Hibrit Protez: Olgu Sunumu ve 1 Yıllık Takibi

Abstract

ÖZET Amaç: Hareketli protezler uzun yıllardır protetik diş tedavisinde başarılı bir şekilde kullanılmaktadırlar. Ancak bu protezlerdeki retansiyon ve stabilite problemleri hem hekimi hem de hastayı oldukça zorlamaktadır. Dental implantların yeterli alveolar kemik varlığında protetik tedaviler için kullanılmaya başlanmasıyla sabit protetik tedavilerin uygulanma sıklığı artmıştır. Yetersiz alveolar kemik varlığında ise dental implant destekli sabit bir protetik tedavi uygulanabilmesi için tedavi süresini uzatan ve ikincil cerrahi girişimleri içeren kemik ogmentasyonu prosedürleri gerekmektedir. Fakat son yıllarda gelişen dental implant sistemleri ile, ileri düzeyde kemik yıkımına sahip hastalarda bile implantların tek seansta yerleştirilebildiği, hatta implant operasyonu sonrası sabit protezin hemen uygulanabildiği tedavi alternatifleri gelişmiştir. Bunlardan biri bilgisayarlı ortamda kişiye özel olarak tasarlanan ve üretilen subperiostal implantlar ile uygulanabilmektedir. Bu olgu sunumunun amacı standart endosteal implantlar için yetersiz alveolar kemiğe sahip olan hastaya kemik ogmentasyonu ve ikincil cerrahi girişime gerek kalmadan uygulanan subperiostal implantların üzerine uygulanan hibrit bir dental protezin sonucunu takip etmektir. Olgu Sunumu: Bu olgu sunumunda İstanbul Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi’ne dişsizlik şikayetiyle başvuran hastanın teşhis, tedavi ve takip süreci ele alınmıştır. Sonuç: Subperiostal implantlar ile yetersiz alveolar kemik seviyesine sahip olan hastalara kısa sürede tek bir cerrahi işlem uygulanarak başarılı bir sabit hibrit protez yapılabilir. Anahtar kelimeler: hibrit protezler, implant destekli protezler, subperiosteal implantlar

Keywords

• hibrit protezler
• implant destekli protezler
• subperiostal implantlar

Subperiostal Implant-Supported Patient-Specific Hybrid Prosthesis: A Case Report and 1-Year Follow-Up

Abstract

ABSTRACT Objectives: Removable prostheses have been successfully used in prosthetic dental treatment for many years. However, the retention and stability problems of these prostheses pose significant challenges for both the dentist and the patient. With the use of dental implants in prosthetic treatments, provided there is sufficient alveolar bone, the frequency of fixed prosthetic treatments has increased. In cases of insufficient alveolar bone, bone augmentation procedures, which prolong the treatment duration and involve secondary surgical interventions, are required to perform a dental implant-supported fixed prosthetic treatment. However, in recent years, dental implant systems have advanced, allowing implants to be placed in a single session, even in patients with advanced bone loss. Additionally, fixed prostheses can be applied immediately after the implant surgery. One of these treatment alternatives involves subperiosteal implants, which are custom-designed and produced in a computerized environment. The aim of this case report is to monitor the outcome of a hybrid dental prosthesis placed on subperiosteal implants applied to a patient with insufficient alveolar bone for standard endosteal implants, without the need for bone augmentation or secondary surgical intervention. Case Report: In this case report, the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up process of our patient, who presented to Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry with a complaint of edentulism, is discussed. Result: With subperiosteal implants, a successful fixed hybrid prosthesis can be made in a short time with a single surgical procedure for patients with insufficient alveolar bone levels. Keywords: hybrid prothesis, implant supported prosthesis, subperiosteal implants

Keywords

• hybrid prosthesis
• implant supported prosthesis
• subperiosteal implants

References

1. Martins AMC, Guimarães LS, Campos CH, et al. The effect of complete dentures on edentulous patients’ oral health-related quality of life in long-term: A systematic review and metaanalysis. Dent Res J. 2021;18:65.
2. Misch CE. Contemporary Implant Dentistry. Implant Dent. 1999;8(1):90.
3. Urban IA, Montero E, Monje A, Sanz-Sánchez I. Effectiveness of vertical ridge augmentation interventions: A systematic review and metaanalysis. J Clin Periodontol. 2019;46(S21):319- 39.
4. Moore DJ, Hansen PA. A descriptive 18-year retrospective review of subperiosteal implants for patients with severely atrophied edentulous mandibles. J Prosthet Dent. 2004;92(2):145-50.
5. Young L, Michel JD, Moore DJ. A twenty-year evaluation of subperiosteal implants. J Prosthet Dent. Mayıs 1983;49(5):690-4.
6. Mommaerts MY. Additively manufactured subperiosteal jaw implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017;46(7):938-40.
7. Anitua E, Eguia A, Staudigl C, Alkhraisat MH. Clinical performance of additively manufactured subperiosteal implants: a systematic review. Int J Implant Dent. 2024;10(1):4.
8. Huang YC, Huang YC, Ding SJ. Primary stability of implant placement and loading related to dental implant materials and designs: A literature review. J Dent Sci. 2023;18(4):1467-76.

9. Zielinski R, Okulski J, Piechaczek M, et al. Five-Year Comparative Study of Zygomatic and Subperiosteal Implants: Clinical Outcomes, Complications, and Treatment Strategies for Severe Maxillary Atrophy. J Clin Med. 2025;14(3):661.
10. Kwon T, Bain PA, Levin L. Systematic review of short- (5–10 years) and long-term (10 years or more) survival and success of full-arch fixed dental hybrid prostheses and supporting implants. J Dent. 2014;42(10):1228-41.
11. Brånemark P, Engstrand P, Öhrnell L, Gröndahl K, Nilsson P, Hagberg K, vd. Brånemark Novum®: A New Treatment Concept for Rehabilitation of the Edentulous Mandible. Preliminary Results from a Prospective Clinical Follow-up Study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 1999;1(1):2-16.
12. Pjetursson BE, Thoma D, Jung R, Zwahlen M, Zembic A. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses ( FDP s) after a mean observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(s6):22-38.
13. Gonzalez J. The Evolution of Dental Materials for Hybrid Prosthesis. Open Dent J. 2014;8:85- 94.
14. Bural C, Geçki̇li̇ O. Hibrit Protezler. Turk Klin Prosthodont - Spec Top. 2015;1(1):45-52.
15. Tribst J, Dal Piva A, Borges A, Rodrigues V, Bottino M, Kleverlaan C. Does the prosthesis weight matter? 3D finite element analysis of a fixed implant-supported prosthesis at different weights and implant numbers. J Adv Prosthodont. 2020;2020:67-74.
16. Brånemark P, Gröndahl K, Öhrnell L, et al. Zygoma fixture in the management of advanced atrophy of the maxilla: technique and long-term results. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 2004;38(2):70-85.
17. Haraldson T. A Photoelastic Study of Some Biomechanical Factors Affecting the Anchorage of Osseointegrated Implants in the Jaw. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg. 1980;14(3):209-14.
18. Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Chuang SK, Weber HP, Gallucci G. A systematic review of biologic and technical complications with fixed implant rehabilitations for edentulous patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012;27(1):102.
19. Goodacre CJ, Bernal G, Rungcharassaeng K, Kan JYK. Clinical complications with implants and implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;90(2):121-32.
20. Priest G, Smith J, Wilson MG. Implant survival and prosthetic complications of mandibular metal-acrylic resin implant complete fixed dental prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;111(6):466-75.
21. Buser D, Sennerby L, De Bruyn H. Modern implant dentistry based on osseointegration: 50 years of progress, current trends and open questions. Periodontol 2000. 2017;73(1):7-21.