İMPLANT DESTEKLİ HİBRİT PROTEZLERİN YAPIMINDA KULLANILAN MATERYALLER VE ÜRETİM YÖNTEMLERİ

Nevin Taş; Ferhan Eğilmez

doi:10.17567/ataunidfd.757321

İMPLANT DESTEKLİ HİBRİT PROTEZLERİN YAPIMINDA KULLANILAN MATERYALLER VE ÜRETİM YÖNTEMLERİ

Öz

Bu derlemenin amacı, geleneksel yöntemle tedavi edilemeyen ya da interark mesafenin sabit protez yapımı için uygun olmadığı durumlarda kullanılan implant destekli hibrit protezler, implant destekli hibrit protezlerin yapımında kullanılan materyaller, protezlerin üretim yöntemleri hakkında literatürlerin taranması ve başarılı bir tedavi için kanıta dayalı bilgi verilmesidir. Bu çalışmada, implant destekli hibrit protezlerin tedavisinde kullanılan yöntem ve materyallerin değerlendirilebilmesi için PubMed aracılığı ile Medline veri tabanında literatür taraması yapılmıştır. İncelenen makaleler değerlendirildiğinde, implant destekli hibrit protezler; estetik ve fonksiyon bakımından geleneksel tam protezlere iyi bir tedavi alternatifidir. Ancak değerlendirmeden sonra uzun dönem komplikasyonlarının fazla olması nedeniyle dikkatli yaklaşılması gereken bir protez türü olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Anahtar kelimeler: implant, hibrit protez, bilgisayar destekli tasarım Methods and Materials for the Construction of Implant Supported Hybrid Prostheses Abstract: The aim of this literature review was to analyze the literature on implant supported hybrid prostheses used for the patients cannot be treated by conventional methods or where intra-arch distance was not suitable for fixed prosthesis construction. Moreover, evidence-based information on successful treatment of the methods and materials used for the fabrication of implant supported hybrid prostheses has been provided. The literature was searched for references to implant supported hybrid prosthesis treatment in Medline via PubMed. Hybrid implant prostheses are a good treatment alternative to conventional full prosthesis in terms of aesthetics and function when the articles reviewed were evaluated. However, following an evaluation, it was concluded that it is a type of prosthesis that should be approached with caution because of the long-term complications. Key words: implant, hybrid prostheses, computer aided design

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kaynakça

1. Karthigeyan S, Ali SA, Mohan K, Deivanai M. An organized start to implant-supported prosthesis. Contemp Clin Dent 2013;4:90-3.
2. Montero J, de Paula CM, Albaladejo A. The “Toronto prosthesis”, an appealing method for restoring patients candidates for hybrid overdentures: A case report. J Clin Exp Dent 2012;4:e309-12.
3. Steigmann M. Aesthetic flap design for correction of buccal fenestration defects. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 2008;20:487-493; quiz 494.
4. Misch C. Contemporary implant dentistry, 3rd edn. St Louis, Missouri: Mosby Elsevier, 2008. 5. Özdoğan A, İncesu A. İmplant destekli hibrit protezler. Atatürk Üniv. Diş Hek. Fak. Derg 2016;26:366-369. 6. Thalji G, Bryington M, De Kok IJ, Cooper LF. Prosthodontic management of implant therapy. Dent Clin North Am 2014;58:207-225. 7. Hebel KS, Gajjar RC. Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: achieving optimal occlusion and esthetics in implant dentistry. J Prosthet Dent 1997;77:28-35.
8. Salenbauch NM, Langner J. New ways of designing suprastructures for fixed implant-supported prostheses. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1998;18:604-612.
9. Balshi TJ. Preventing and resolving complications with osseointegrated implants. Dent Clin North Am 1989;33:821-868.
10. Jain AR, Nallaswamy D, Padma Ariga JMP. Full mouth rehabilitation of a patient with mandibular implant screw retained Fp-3 prosthesis opposing maxillary acrylic removable over-denture. Contemp Clin Dent 2013;4:231-5.
11. Real-Osuna J, Almendros-Marqués N, Gay-Escoda C. Prevalence of complications after the oral rehabilitation with implant-supported hybrid prostheses. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2012;17:e116-21.

12. Gonzalez J. The evolution of dental materials for hybrid prosthesis. Open Dent J 2014;8:85-94.
13. Bural C, Geçkili O. Hibrit Protezler. Turkiye Klinikleri J Prosthodont 2015;1:45-52.
14. Egilmez F, Ergun G, Cekic-Nagas I, Bozkaya S. Implant-supported hybrid prosthesis. Conventional treatment method for borderline cases. Eur J Dent 2015;9:442-448.
15. Gallucci GO, Doughtie CB, Hwang JW, Fiorellini JP, Weber HP. Five‐year results of fixed implant‐supported rehabilitations with distal cantilevers for the edentulous mandible. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20:601-607.
16. Attard NJ, Zarb GA. Long-term treatment outcomes in edentulous patients with implant-fixed prostheses. The Toronto Study. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:417-424.
17. Patzelt SB, Bahat O, Reynolds MA, Strub JR. The all‐on‐four treatment concept: a systematic review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2014;16:836-855.
18. Taylor TD, Agar JR. Twenty years of progress in implant prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 2002;88:89-95.
19. 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;42:1228-1241.
20. Sipahi C, Aydıntuğ YS. Mandibular defektin protetik rehabilitasyonu: Olgu Sunumu. Gülhane Tıp Derg 2011;53:56-59.
21. Kola MZ, Shah AH, Khalil HS, Rabah AM, Harby NM, Sabra SA, et al. Surgical templates for dental implant positioning; current knowledge and clinical perspectives. Niger J Surg 2015;21:1-5.
22. Watzek G (ed). Endosseous implants: Scientific and Clinical Aspects. Quintessence Pub Co, 1996.
23. 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;23:22-38.
24. Lekholm U, Gunne J, Henry P, Higuchi K, Lindén U, Bergström C, et al. Survival of the Brånemark implant in partially edentulous jaws: a 10-year prospective multicenter study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:639-645.
25. Zarb GA, Symington JM. Osseointegrated dental implants: preliminary report on a replication study. J Prosthet Dent 1983;50:271-276.
26. Lundqvist S, Carlsson GE. Maxillary fixed prostheses on osseointegrated dental implants. J Prosthet Dent 1983;50:262-270.
27. Goll G. Production of accurately fitting full-arch implant frameworks: part I—clinical procedures. J Prosthet Dent 1991;66:377-384.
28. Goodacre CJ, Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K. Clinical complications of osseointegrated implants. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:537-552.
29. Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K, Bohsali K, Goodacre CJ, Lang BR. Clinical methods for evaluating implant framework fit. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:7-13.
30. Mughal AJ, Batra R, Kumar M, Bansal A, Jain H. Prosthodontic rehabilitation of edentulous patient with implant supported hybrid prosthesis: A Case Report. Dent J Adv Stud 2018;6:122-125.
31. 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;26:502-507.
32. Sadowsky SJ. The implant-supported prosthesis for the edentulous arch: design considerations. J Prosthet Dent 1997;78:28-33.
33. McAlarney ME, Stavropoulos DN. Determination of cantilever length-anterior-posterior spread ratio assuming failure criteria to be the compromise of the prosthesis retaining screw-prosthesis joint. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:331-339.
34. Zarb G, Schmitt A. The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants: the Toronto study. Part III: Problems and complications encountered. J Prosthet Dent 1990;64:185-194.
35. Spiekermann H. Implantology. 1st edn. Thieme, 1995.
36. Suzuki T, Kumagai H, Yoshitomi N, McGlumphy EA. Occlusal contacts of edentulous patients with mandibular hybrid dentures opposing maxillary complete dentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:504-509.
37. Carlsson GE, Lindquist LW. Ten-year longitudinal study of masticatory function in edentulous patients treated with fixed complete dentures on osseointegrated implants. Int J Prosthodont 1994;7:448-453.
38. Cibirka RM, Razzoog M, Lang BR. Critical evaluation of patient responses to dental implant therapy. J Prosthet Dent 1997;78:574-581.
39. Carr AB, Laney WR. Maximum occlusal force levels in patients with osseointegrated oral implant prostheses and patients with complete dentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1987;2:101-108.
40. Lindquist LW, Carlsson GE. Long-term effects on chewing with mandibular fixed prostheses on osseointegrated implants. Acta Odontol Scand 1985;43:39-45.
41. Haraldson T. A photoelastic study of some biomechanical factors affecting the anchorage of osseointegrated implants in the jaw. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg 1980;14:209-214.
42. Freilich MA, Duncan JP, Alarcon EK, Eckrote KA, Goldberg AJ. The design and fabrication of fiber-reinforced implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2002;88:449-454.
43. Ruyter I, Ekstrand K, Björk N. Development of carbon/graphite fiber reinforced poly (methyl methacrylate) suitable for implant-fixed dental bridges. Dent Mater 1986;2:6-9.
44. Ekstrand K, Ruyter IE, Wellendorf H. Carbon/graphite fiber reinforced poly (methyl methacrylate): properties under dry and wet conditions. J Biomed Mater Res 1987;21:1065-1080.
45. Björk N, Ekstrand K, Ruyter I. Implant-fixed, dental bridges from carbon/graphite fibre reinforced poly (methyl methacrylate). Biomaterials 1986;7:73-75.
46. Chen T-W, Chang H-S, Leung K-W, Lai Y-L, Kao S-Y. Implant placement immediately after the lateral approach of the trap door window procedure to create a maxillary sinus lift without bone grafting: a 2-year retrospective evaluation of 47 implants in 33 patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;65:2324-2328.
47. Cheng AC, Tee-Khin N, Siew-Luen C, Lee H, Wee AG. The management of a severely resorbed edentulous maxilla using a bone graft and a CAD/CAM-guided immediately loaded definitive implant prosthesis: A Clinical Report. J Prosthet Dent 2008;99:85-90.
48. Becktor JP, Hallström H, Isaksson S, Sennerby L. The use of particulate bone grafts from the mandible for maxillary sinus floor augmentation before placement of surface-modified implants: results from bone grafting to delivery of the final fixed prosthesis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;66:780-786.
49. Capelli M, Zuffetti F, Del Fabbro M, Testori T. Immediate rehabilitation of the completely edentulous jaw with fixed prostheses supported by either upright or tilted implants: a multicenter clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007;22:639-644.
50. Hjalmarsson L, Smedberg JI. A 3‐year retrospective study of Cresco frameworks: preload and complications. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2005;7:189-199.
51. Turkyilmaz I, Patel NS, McGlumphy EA. Oral rehabilitation of a severely resorbed edentulous maxilla with screwed-retained hybrid denture using Cresco system: A Case Report. Eur J Dent 2008;2:220-223.
52. Dilber E, Aral CA, Yavuz MS, Işık EN. CAD/CAM ile üretilen titanyum altyapılı hibrit protez uygulaması: Olgu Sunumu. Atatürk Üniv. Diş Hek. Fak. Derg 2016:36-41.
53. Örtorp A, Jemt T, Bäck T, Jälevik T. Comparisons of precision of fit between cast and CNC-milled titanium implant frameworks for the edentulous mandible. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16:194-200.
54. Scarano A, Stoppaccioli M, Casolino T. Zirconia crowns cemented on titanium bars using CAD/CAM: a five-year follow-up prospective clinical study of 9 patients. BMC Oral Health 2019;19:1-9.
55. Hagiwara Y, Nakajima K, Tsuge T, McGlumphy EA. The use of customized implant frameworks with gingiva-colored composite resin to restore deficient gingival architecture. J Prosthet Dent 2007;97:112-117.
56. Rajan M, Gunaseelan R. Fabrication of a cement-and screw-retained implant prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent 2004;92:578-580.
57. Barootchi S, Askar H, Ravidà A, Gargallo-Albiol J, Travan S, Wang HL. Long-term Clinical Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness of Full-Arch Implant-Supported Zirconia-Based and Metal-Acrylic Fixed Dental Prostheses: A Retrospective Analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2020;35:395-405.
58. Baig M-R, Rajan G, Rajan M. Edentulous arch treatment with a CAD/CAM screw-retained framework and cemented crowns: A Clinical Case Report. J Oral Implantol 2009;35:295-299.
59. 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;111:466-475.
60. Heintze SD, Zellweger G, Grunert I, Muñoz-Viveros CA, Hagenbuch K. Laboratory methods for evaluating the wear of denture teeth and their correlation with clinical results. Dent Mater 2012;28:261-272.
61. Radhi A, Juszczyk AS, Curtis RV, Sherriff M, Radford DR, Clark R. Effect of GC METALPRIMER II on bond strength of heat-cured acrylic resin to titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V) with two different surface treatments. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2008;16:132-137.
62. Drago C, Howell K. Concepts for designing and fabricating metal implant frameworks for hybrid implant prostheses. J Prosthodont 2012;21:413-424.
63. Qamheya AHA, Yeniyol S, Arısan V. Full mouth oral rehabilitation by maxillary implant supported hybrid denture employing a fiber reinforced material instead of conventional PMMA. Case Rep Dent 2015:1-5.
64. Jenkins M. Relaxation behaviour in blends of PEEK and PEI. Polymer 2000;41:6803-6812.
65. Bandyopadhyay A, Petersen J, Fielding G, Banerjee S, Bose S. ZnO, SiO2, and SrO doping in resorbable tricalcium phosphates: Influence on strength degradation, mechanical properties, and in vitro bone–cell material interactions. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2012;100:2203-2212.
66. Sarot JR, Contar CMM, Da Cruz ACC, de Souza Magini R. Evaluation of the stress distribution in CFR-PEEK dental implants by the three-dimensional finite element method. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2010;21:2079-2085.
67. Ghodsi S, Zeighami S, Meisami Azad M. Comparing retention and internal adaptation of different implant-supported, metal-free frameworks. Int J Prosthodont. 2018;31:475-477.
68. Rosentritt M, Schneider-Feyrer S, Behr M, Preis V. In Vitro Shock Absorption Tests on Implant-Supported Crowns: Influence of crown materials and luting agents. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2018;33:116-122.
69. Taufall S, Eichberger M, Schmidlin PR, Stawarczyk B. Fracture load and failure types of different veneered polyetheretherketone fixed dental prostheses. Clin Oral Investig 2016;20:2493-2500.
70. Maló P, de Araújo Nobre M, Moura Guedes C, Almeida R, Silva A, Sereno N, et al. Short‐term report of an ongoing prospective cohort study evaluating the outcome of full‐arch implant‐supported fixed hybrid polyetheretherketone‐acrylic resin prostheses and the All‐on‐Four concept. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2018;20:692-702.
71. Han K-H, Lee J-Y, Shin SW, Han K-H, Lee J-Y, Shin SW. Implant-and tooth-supported fixed prostheses using a high-performance polymer (pekkton) framework. Int J Prosthodont 2016;29:451-454.
72. Ravidà A, Barootchi S, Tattan M, Saleh MHA, Gargallo-Albiol J, Wang HL. Clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness of computer-guided versus conventional implant-retained hybrid prostheses: A long-term retrospective analysis of treatment protocols. J Periodontol. 2018;89:1015-1024.
73. Marrone A, Lasserre J, Bercy P, Brecx MC. Prevalence and risk factors for peri‐implant disease in Belgian adults. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24:934-940.
74. Feine J, De Grandmont P, Boudrias P, et al. Within-subject comparisons of implant-supported mandibular prostheses: choice of prosthesis. J Dent Res 1994;73:1105-1111.
75. Jemt T. Failures and complications in 391 consecutively inserted fixed prostheses supported by Brånemark implants in edentulous jaws: a study of treatment from the time of prosthesis placement to the first annual checkup. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1991;6:270-276.
76. Purcell BA, McGlumphy EA, Holloway JA, Beck FM. Prosthetic complications in mandibular metal-resin implant-fixed complete dental prostheses: a 5-to 9-year analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:847-857.
77. Goodacre CJ, Bernal G, Rungcharassaeng K, Kan JY. Clinical complications with implants and implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90:121-132.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil

Türkçe

Konular

Diş Hekimliği

Bölüm

Derleme

Yazarlar

Nevin Taş Bu kişi benim
0000-0001-8261-7060
Andorra

Ferhan Eğilmez Bu kişi benim
0000-0001-9325-8761
Andorra

Yayımlanma Tarihi

15 Nisan 2021

Gönderilme Tarihi

13 Ocak 2020

Kabul Tarihi

24 Haziran 2020

Yayımlandığı Sayı

Yıl 2021 Cilt: 31 Sayı: 2

DOI

https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.757321

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA38XR36MP

Kaynak Göster

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Taş, N., & Eğilmez, F. (2021). İMPLANT DESTEKLİ HİBRİT PROTEZLERİN YAPIMINDA KULLANILAN MATERYALLER VE ÜRETİM YÖNTEMLERİ. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi, 31(2), 305-315. https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.757321

AMA

1.Taş N, Eğilmez F. İMPLANT DESTEKLİ HİBRİT PROTEZLERİN YAPIMINDA KULLANILAN MATERYALLER VE ÜRETİM YÖNTEMLERİ. Ata Diş Hek Fak Derg. 2021;31(2):305-315. doi:10.17567/ataunidfd.757321

Chicago

Taş, Nevin, ve Ferhan Eğilmez. 2021. “İMPLANT DESTEKLİ HİBRİT PROTEZLERİN YAPIMINDA KULLANILAN MATERYALLER VE ÜRETİM YÖNTEMLERİ”. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi 31 (2): 305-15. https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.757321.

EndNote

Taş N, Eğilmez F (01 Nisan 2021) İMPLANT DESTEKLİ HİBRİT PROTEZLERİN YAPIMINDA KULLANILAN MATERYALLER VE ÜRETİM YÖNTEMLERİ. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi 31 2 305–315.

IEEE

[1]N. Taş ve F. Eğilmez, “İMPLANT DESTEKLİ HİBRİT PROTEZLERİN YAPIMINDA KULLANILAN MATERYALLER VE ÜRETİM YÖNTEMLERİ”, Ata Diş Hek Fak Derg, c. 31, sy 2, ss. 305–315, Nis. 2021, doi: 10.17567/ataunidfd.757321.

ISNAD

Taş, Nevin - Eğilmez, Ferhan. “İMPLANT DESTEKLİ HİBRİT PROTEZLERİN YAPIMINDA KULLANILAN MATERYALLER VE ÜRETİM YÖNTEMLERİ”. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi 31/2 (01 Nisan 2021): 305-315. https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.757321.

JAMA

1.Taş N, Eğilmez F. İMPLANT DESTEKLİ HİBRİT PROTEZLERİN YAPIMINDA KULLANILAN MATERYALLER VE ÜRETİM YÖNTEMLERİ. Ata Diş Hek Fak Derg. 2021;31:305–315.

MLA

Taş, Nevin, ve Ferhan Eğilmez. “İMPLANT DESTEKLİ HİBRİT PROTEZLERİN YAPIMINDA KULLANILAN MATERYALLER VE ÜRETİM YÖNTEMLERİ”. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi, c. 31, sy 2, Nisan 2021, ss. 305-1, doi:10.17567/ataunidfd.757321.

Vancouver

1.Nevin Taş, Ferhan Eğilmez. İMPLANT DESTEKLİ HİBRİT PROTEZLERİN YAPIMINDA KULLANILAN MATERYALLER VE ÜRETİM YÖNTEMLERİ. Ata Diş Hek Fak Derg. 01 Nisan 2021;31(2):305-1. doi:10.17567/ataunidfd.757321

İMPLANT DESTEKLİ HİBRİT PROTEZLERİN YAPIMINDA KULLANILAN MATERYALLER VE ÜRETİM YÖNTEMLERİ

İMPLANT DESTEKLİ HİBRİT PROTEZLERİN YAPIMINDA KULLANILAN MATERYALLER VE ÜRETİM YÖNTEMLERİ

Öz

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kaynakça

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil

Konular

Bölüm

Yazarlar

Yayımlanma Tarihi

Gönderilme Tarihi

Kabul Tarihi

Yayımlandığı Sayı

DOI

IZ

Kaynak Göster

Cited By

YÜKSEK PERFORMANSLI POLIMERLERIN BAZI DENTAL MATERYALLER ILE BAĞLANMA DAYANIMLARININ DEĞERLENDIRILMESI: BIR DERLEME

İmplant Destekli Protetik Restorasyonlarda Kullanılan Üst Yapı Materyalleri ve Seçim Kriterleri

Artvin'de (Çoruh) Cumhuriyet Bayramı Kutlamaları (1936-1945)

CURRENT MATERIALS USED IN IMPLANT-SUPPORTED HYBRID PROSTHESES: A REVIEW