Tooth-implant-supported fixed prostheses

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 33 Sayı: 1, 50 - 57, 31.01.2023

Cansu Kurtoğlu Neşet Volkan Asar

https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.984621

Öz

İmplant destekli sabit protezler kısmi dişsiz hastaların tedavisinde rutin olarak uygulanan tedavi yöntemleridir. Anatomik, protetik veya hastaya bağlı faktörler nedeniyle sadece implantlardan destek alan sabit protezlerin uygulanamadığı vakalar, minimal düzeyde invaziv olan diş-implant destekli protezlerle tedavi edilebilir. Oklüzal kuvvetler altında diş ve implant desteklerinin hare- ket özelliklerinin birbirinden farklı olması klinikte protezlerin başarısızlığıyla sonuçlanacak tek- nik ve biyolojik komplikasyonların oluşması olasılığını arttırdığı için diş-implant destekli protez uygulamaları klinisyenler arasında tartışmaya neden olmuştur. Diş-implant destekli protezlerin uzun süreli başarısı için endikasyonları, biyomekanik özellikleri, protez tasarımları, bağlantı tipinin yapısı, uygulama prensipleri, teknik ve biyolojik komplikasyonları ile bunların sebepleri hakkında bilgi sahibi olunması son derece önemlidir. Bu derleme çalışmasının amacı, bu alanda yapılan çalışmaların ışığında, diş-implant destekli protezler için uygun tedavi planlanmasının yapılma- sında ve klinik uygulamada klinisyenlere yardımcı olabilecek detaylı ve kapsamlı bilgi sunmaktır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Diş implantları, diş protezi, implant destekli, protez, kısmi, sabit

ABSTRACT
Implant-supported prostheses are the treatment modalities, which are routinely used to reha- bilitate partially edentulous patients. The patients who cannot be treated with fixed prostheses solely supported by implants due to anatomical, prosthodontic, or patient-related factors can be rehabilitated with tooth-implant-supported fixed prostheses that are minimally invasive. Since the differences in mobility patterns between tooth and implant supports under occlusal load- ing have increased the possibility of the occurence of technical and biological complications that can result into failure in clinic, clinical applications of tooth-implant-supported fixed prostheses have led to debate among clinicians. In order to achieve long-term success for tooth-implant- supported prostheses, having knowledge regarding the indications, the biomechanical charac- teristics, the types of prostheses, the nature of connection, the guidelines, and the technical and biological complications and their causes is of vital importance. The purpose of this review is to provide detailed and comprehensive knowledge that may help clinicans in establishing appropri- ate treatment planning and in clinical applications for tooth-implant-supported prostheses in the light of the studies carried out in this field.
Keywords: Dental implants, dental prosthesis, implant-supported, denture, partial, fixed

Anahtar Kelimeler

Dental implants, dental prosthesis, implant-supported, denture, partial

Kaynakça

• 1. Chee WW, Mordohai N. Tooth-to-implant connection: A systematic review of the literature and a case report utilizing a new connec- tion design . Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2010;12(2):122-133. [CrossRef]
• 2. Gunne J, Åstrand P, Lindh T, Borg K, Olsson M. Tooth-implant and implant supported fixed partial dentures: A 10-year report . Int J Prosthodont. 1999;12(3):216-221.
• 3. Hita-Carrillo C, Hernández-Aliaga M, Calvo-Guirado JL. Tooth- implant connection: A bibliographic review . Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2010;15(2):e387-e394. [CrossRef]
• 4. Hosny M, Duyck J, Van Steenberghe D, Naert I. Within-subject com- parison between connected and nonconnected tooth-to-implant fixed partial prostheses: Up to 14-year follow-up study . Int J Pros- thodont. 2000;13(4):340-346.
• 5. Nickenig HJ, Schäfer C, Spiekermann H. Survival and complication rates of combined tooth–implant-supported fixed partial dentures. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006;17(5):506-511. [CrossRef]
• 6. Olsson M, Gunne J, Ästrand P, Borg K. Bridges supported by free- standing implants versus bridges supported by tooth and implant. A five-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1995;6(2):114-121. [CrossRef]
• 7. Chee W, Jivraj S. Connecting implants to teeth. Br Dent J. 2006;201(10):629-632. [CrossRef]
• 8. Misch CE. Natural teeth adjacent to an implant site: Joining implants to teeth. In: Misch CE, ed. Dental Implant Prosthetics. St Louis: Elsevier; 2015:403-419.
• 9. Naert IE, Duyck JA, Hosny MM, Van Steenberghe D. Freestanding and tooth-implant connected prostheses in the treatment of partially edentulous patients: Part I: An up to 15-years clinical evaluation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001;12(3):237-244. [CrossRef]
• 10. Spear F. Connecting teeth to implants: The truth about a debated technique. J Am Dent Assoc. 2009;140(5):587-593. [CrossRef]
• 11. Cavicchia F, Bravi F. Free-standing vs tooth-connected implant supported fixed partial restorations: A comparative retrospective clinical study of the prosthetic results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1994;9(6):711-718.
• 12. Greenstein G, Cavallaro J, Smith R, Tarnow D. Connecting teeth to implants: A critical review of the literature and presentation of practical guidelines. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2009;30(7): 440-453.
• 13. Gunne J, Åstrand P, Ahlén K, Borg K, Olsson M. Implants in partially edentulous patients. A longitudinal study of bridges supported by both implants and natural teeth. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1992;3(2): 49-56. [CrossRef]
• 14. Menicucci G, Mossolov A, Mozzati M, Lorenzetti M, Preti G. Tooth– implant connection: Some biomechanical aspects based on finite element analyses. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002;13(3):334-341. [CrossRef]
• 15. Pow EH, Wat PY, Chow TW. Retrievable cement-retained implant-to oth-supported prosthesis: A new technique. Implant Dent. 2000; 9(4):346-350. [CrossRef]
• 16. Gross M, Laufer BZ. Splinting osseointegrated implants and natural teeth in rehabilitation of partially edentulous patients. Part I: Laboratory and clinical studies. J Oral Rehabil. 1997;24(11):863-870. [CrossRef]
• 17. Rangert B, Gunne J, Sullivan DY. Mechanical aspects of a Brånemark implant connected to a natural tooth: An in vitro study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1991;6(2):177-186.
• 18. Mühlemann HR. Tooth mobility: A review of clinical aspects and research findings. J Periodontol. 1967;38(6):686-708. [CrossRef]
• 19. Komiyama Y. Clinical and research experience with osseointegrated implants in Japan. In: Albrektsson T, Zarb G, eds. The Branemark Osseointegrated Implant. 1st ed. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing; 1989:197-214.
• 20. Lundgren D, Laurell L. Biomechanical aspects of fixed bridgework supported by natural teeth and endosseous implants. Periodontol 2000. 1994;4(1):23-40. [CrossRef]
• 21. Laufer BZ, Gross M. Splinting osseointegrated implants and natural teeth in rehabilitation of partially edentulous patients. Part II: Principles and applications. J Oral Rehabil. 1998;25(1):69-80. [CrossRef]
• 22. Beuer F, Sachs C, Groesser J, Gueth J-F, Stimmelmayr M. Tooth-impl ant-supported posterior fixed dental prostheses with zirconia frameworks: 3-year clinical result. Clin Oral Investig. 2016;20(5): 1079-1086. [CrossRef]
• 23. Alkharrat AR, Schmitter M, Rues S, Rammelsberg P. Fracture behaviour of all-ceramic, implant-supported, and tooth-implant supported fixed dental prostheses. Clin Oral Investig. 2018;22(4): 1663-1673. [CrossRef]
• 24. Rammelsberg P, Meyer A, Lorenzo-Bermejo J, Kappel S, Zenthöfer A. Long-term chipping and failure rates of implant-supported and combined tooth-implant-supported metal-ceramic and ceramic fixed dental prostheses: A cohort study. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;126(2): 196-203. [CrossRef]
• 25. Le M, Papia E, Larsson C. The clinical success of tooth- and implant- supported zirconia-based fixed dental prostheses. A systematic review. J Oral Rehabil. 2015;42(6):467-480. [CrossRef]
• 26. Pieralli S, Kohal RJ, Rabel K, von-von Stein-Lausnitz M, Vach K, Spies BC. Clinical outcomes partial and full-arch all-ceramic implant- supported fixed dental prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018; 29(suppl 18):224-236. [CrossRef] 27. Shi JY, Zhang XM, Qiao SC, Qian SJ, Mo JJ, Lai HC. Hardware compli- cations and failure of three-unit zirconia-based and porcelain-fused- metal implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: A retrospective cohort study with up to 8 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28(5): 571-575. [CrossRef]
• 28. Stanford MC. Restorative phase treatment planning. In: Jokstad A, ed. Osseointegration and Dental Implants. 1st ed. Iowa: Wiley-Black- well; 2009:255-268.
• 29. Schlumberger TL, Bowley JF, Maze GI. Intrusion phenomenon in combination tooth-implant restorations: A review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent. 1998;80(2):199-203. [CrossRef]
• 30. Tsaousoglou P, Michalakis K, Kang K, Weber HP, Sculean A. The effect of rigid and non-rigid connections between implants and teeth on biological and technical complications: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28(7):849-863. [CrossRef]
• 31. Nishimura RD, Ochiai KT, Caputo AA, Jeong CM. Photoelastic stress analysis of load transfer to implants and natural teeth comparing rigid and semirigid connectors. J Prosthet Dent. 1999;81(6):696-703. [CrossRef]
• 32. Uysal H, Iplikçioğlu H, Avci M, Gündüz Bilir O, Kural O. An experimen- tal analysis of the stresses on the implant in an implant-tooth sup- ported prosthesis: A technical note. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997;12(1):118-124.
• 33. Weinberg LA, Kruger B. Biomechanical considerations when com- bining tooth-supported and implant-supported prostheses. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1994;78(1):22-27. [CrossRef]
• 34. Block MS, Lirette D, Gardiner D, et al. Prospective evaluation of implants connected to teeth. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2002; 17(4):473-487.
• 35. Cho GC, Chee WW. Apparent intrusion of natural teeth under an implant-supported prosthesis: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 1992;68(1):3-5. [CrossRef]
• 36. Brägger U, Aeschlimann S, Bürgin W, Hämmerle CH, Lang NP. Bio- logical and technical complications and failures with fixed partial dentures (FPD) on implants and teeth after four to five years of func- tion. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001;12(1):26-34. [CrossRef]
• 37. Pesun IJ. Intrusion of teeth in the combination implant-to-natural-t ooth fixed partial denture: A review of the theories. J Prosthodont. 1997;6(4):268-277. [CrossRef]
• 38. Kumar GA, Kovoor LC, Oommen VM. Three-dimensional finite ele- ment analysis of the stress distribution around the implant and tooth in tooth implant-supported fixed prosthesis designs. J Dent Implant. 2011;1(2):75-79. [CrossRef]
• 39. Lin CL, Chang SH, Wang JC, Chang WJ. Mechanical interactions of an implant/tooth-supported system under different periodontal sup- ports and number of splinted teeth with rigid and non-rigid connec- tions. J Dent. 2006;34(9):682-691. [CrossRef]
• 40. Rodrigue S, Saldanha SR, Shenoy V, Prashanti E. Tooth implant sup- ported Prosthesis: A literature review. J Interdiscip Dentistry. 2013; 3(3):143-150. [CrossRef]
• 41. Babbush CA, Kirsch A, Mentag PJ, Hill B. Intramobile cylinder (IMZ) two-stage osteointegrated implant system with the intramobile element (IME): Part I. Its rationale and procedure for use. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1987;2(4):203-216
• 42. Kirsch A, Mentag PJ. The IMZ endosseous two phase implant system; a complete oral rehabilitation treatment concept. J Oral Implantol. 1986;12(4):576-589.
• 43. Hertel RC, Kalk W. Influence of the dimensions of implant super- structure on peri-implant bone loss. Int J Prosthodont. 1993;6(1): 18-24.
• 44. Becker CM, Kaiser DA, Jones JD. Guidelines for splinting implants. J Prosthet Dent. 2000;84(2):210-214. [CrossRef]
• 45. Gururaju C, Raghu KM, Subramaniam R, Hiregoudar M. Connecting implant to the teeth: Does tooth intrude? Indian J Stomatol. 2012; 3(3):180-183. 46. Pjetursson BE, Brägger U, Lang NP, Zwahlen M. Comparison of sur- vival and complication rates of tooth-supported fixed dental pros- theses (FDPs) and implant-supported FDPs and single crowns (SCs). Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007;18(suppl 3):97-113. [CrossRef]
• 47. Adalı E, Yüce MÖ, Günbay T, Çıplak G. Farklı dental implantların başarı oranlarının geriye dönük olarak değerlendirilmesi. Atatürk Üniv Diş Hek Fak Derg. 2018;28(2):174-181.
• 48. Nooji D, Lunia MR. Tooth-implant supported prosthesis-a review. Int J Curr Res. 2017;9:50651-50656.
• 49. von Stein-Lausnitz M, Nickenig HJ, Wolfart S, et al. Survival rates and complication behaviour of tooth implant-supported, fixed dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2019; 88:103167. [CrossRef]
• 50. Ramoglu S, Tasar S, Gunsoy S, Ozan O, Meric G. Tooth-Implant con- nection: A review. ISRN Biomater. 2013;2013:1-7. [CrossRef]
• 51. Lang NP, Pjetursson BE, Tan K, Brägger U, Egger M, Zwahlen M. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of fixed par- tial dentures (FPDs) after an observation period of at least 5 years: II. Combined tooth–implant-supported FPDs. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004;15(6):643-653. [CrossRef]
• 52. Hamed MT, Mously HA. Stress analysis for different designs of implant-borne and tooth-implant fixed partial dentures in mandibu- lar posterior region. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2019;20(12):1375-1379. [CrossRef]
• 53. Al-Omiri MK, Al-Masri M, Alhijawi MM, Lynch E. Combined implant and tooth support. An up-to-date comprehensive overview. Int J Dent. 2017;2017:6024565. [CrossRef]
• 54. Ghodsi S, Rasaeipour S. Tooth-implant connection: A literature review. World J Dent. 2012;3(2):213-219. [CrossRef]
• 55. Weinberg LA. Biomechanics of tooth-and implant-supported pros- thesis. In: Weinberg LA, ed. An Atlas of Tooth-and Implant-Supported Prosthodontics. 1st ed. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Company; 2003:47-67.
• 56. Lindh T, Dahlgren S, Gunnarsson K, et al. Tooth-implant supported fixed prostheses: A retrospective multicenter study. Int J Prostho- dont. 2001;14(4):321-328.
• 57. Wolleb K, Sailer I, Thoma A, Menghini G, Hämmerle F, Christoph H. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of patients receiving both tooth-and implant-supported prosthodontic treatment after 5 years of function. Int J Prosthodont. 2012;25(3):252-259.
• 58. Naert I, Koutsikakis G, Quirynen M, Duyck J, Van Steenberghe D, Jacobs R. Biologic outcome of implant-supported restorations in the treatment of partial edentulism: Part 2: A longitudinal radio- graphic evaluation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002;13(4):390-395. [CrossRef]
• 59. Akça K, Uysal S, Çehreli MC. Implant–tooth-supported fixed partial prostheses: Correlations between in vivo occlusal bite forces and marginal bone reactions. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006;17(3):331-336. [CrossRef]
• 60. Alsabeeha NHM, Atieh MA. Outcomes and complication rates of the tooth-implant-supported fixed prosthesis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2020;35(4):685-699. [CrossRef]
• 61. Sheets CG, Earthmann JC. Natural tooth intrusion and reversal in implant-assisted prosthesis: Evidence of and a hypothesis for the occurrence. J Prosthet Dent. 1993;70(6):513-520. [CrossRef]
• 62. Sheets CG, Earthman JC. Tooth intrusion in implant-assisted pros- theses. J Prosthet Dent. 1997;77(1):39-45. [CrossRef]
• 63. Lin CL, Wang JC, Chang WJ. Biomechanical interactions in tooth– implant-supported fixed partial dentures with variations in the num- ber of splinted teeth and connector type: A finite element analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008;19(1):107-117. [CrossRef]