medigraphic.com
ISSN 1870-199X (Print)
Órgano oficial de la Facultad de Odontología, UNAM

2012, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Rev Odont Mex 2012; 16 (2)

Multi-disciplinary prosthetic rehabilitation. Clinical case report

Mendoza RS, Ríos SE, Treviño SA, Olivares TS

Language: Spanish
References: 29
Page: 112-122
PDF size: 411.45 Kb.


ABSTRACT

In present days, evolution in Dentistry and changes in prosthetic techniques and materials have rendered patients more demanding in matters concerning aesthetics, function, and comfort. Issues involving face and teeth require interaction of several dental disciplines, with the aim of attaining prevention, function and aesthetics, which can be attained through well organized communication. Multidisciplinary prosthetic rehabilitation meets that goal. A multidisciplinary treatment is based upon diagnosis, planning and therapeutic procedures. Treatment planning can initiate with a visualization of the final result. If several disciplines were not to be involved in the comprehensive treatment, results could result compromised. Objective: Step by step description of clinical phases, in a multidisciplinary treatment based upon diagnosis and planning. Different specialties are involved: Surgery, Implantology, Periodontics, Endodontics, Oral Prosthetics and Occlusion. The inclusion of all these disciplines will achieve stability in the periodontal tissues as well as tissues surrounding future implants, recovery of periodontal architecture and masticatory function, as well as attaining acceptable aesthetic results and gaining the patients aesthetic and functional satisfaction. Clinical case presentation: 47 year old female patient, in general good health, some missing teeth, inappropriate prosthetic work, loss of periodontal support as well as aesthetic and functional alterations. Treatment plan was decided upon, and divided into four phases: the first phase consisted on tooth extraction and implant placement. The second phase involved canal treatment and re-treatment with stump reconstruction, which involved the making of a guide for partial coronary conformation. The third prosthetic phase involved treatment of soft tissues, impressions, implant rehabilitation, characterization, cementing with the CAD-CAM Procera® system and occlusal splint. The fourth phase involved periodontal and prosthetic control. Conclusion: Treatment success was based upon the following factors: 1) Maintenance of periodontal and tissues surrounding the implant, 2) Periodontal architecture recovery, 3) Masticatory function recovery, 4) Obtaining acceptable aesthetic results, 5) Patient’s satisfaction with respect to aesthetics and function.


REFERENCES

  1. Roblee RD. Interdisciplinary dentofacial therapy. A comprehensive approach to optimal patient care. Chicago, IL: Quintessence Publishing, 1994: 17-43.

  2. Ibbetson R. Treatment planning. British Dental Journal 1999; 186 (11).

  3. Jivraj S, Corrado P, Chee W. An interdisciplinary approach to treatment planning in implant dentistry. British Dental Journal 2007; 202 (1): 11-18.

  4. Wikipedia www.wikipedia.com.mx

  5. Palazzo M, Massai L. The importance of the operating sequence: a multidisciplinary treatment approach. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 2007; 19 (8): 483-9.

  6. Roblee RD. Interdisciplinary dentofacial therapy. A comprehensive approach to optimal patient care. Chicago, IL: Quintessence Publishing, 1994: 17-43.

  7. Meadows LM, Verdi AJ, Crabtree BF. Keeping up appearances: using qualitative research to enhance knowledge of dental practice. J Dent Educ 2003; 67: 981-90.

  8. Lambert H. Accounting for EBM: Notions of evidence in medicine. Soc Sci Med 2006; 62: 2633-45.

  9. Bader HI. Treatment planning for implants versus root canal therapy: a contemporary dilemma. Implant Dent 2002; 11: 217-23.

  10. Dawson AS, Cardaci SC. Endodontics versus implantology: to extirpate or integrate? Aust Endod J 2006; 32: 57-63.

  11. Doyle SL, Hodges JS, Pesun IJ, Baisden MK, Bowles WR. Factors affecting outcomes for single-tooth implants and endodontic restorations. J Endod 2007; 33: 399-402.

  12. Salinas TJ, Eckert SE. In patients requiring single – tooth replacement, what are the outcomes of implant – as compared to tooth – supported restorations? Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007; 22 (Supp l): 71-95.

  13. Iqbal MK, Kim S. For teeth requiring endodontic treatment, what are the differences in outcomes of restored endodontically treated teeth compared to implant-supported restorations? Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007; 22 (Supp l): 96-116.

  14. Clínicas odontológicas de Norteamérica. Endodoncia. Ed. Interamericana, 1984; 4: 917-921.

  15. Shillinburg, Herbert T. Fundamentos esenciales de prótesis fija. 3ª edición. Ed. Quintessence S.L., Barcelona, 2000.

  16. Reeh, E, Messer H, Douglas W. Reduction in tooth stiffness as a results of endodontic and restorative procedures. J. Endod (1989), 15:512.

  17. Steven A, Aquilino, Caplan DJ. Relationship between crown placement and the survival of endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 2002; 87: 256-63.

  18. Heling I, Gorfil C et al. Endodontic failure caused by inadequate restorative procedures: Review and treatment recommendations. J Prosthet Dent 2002; 87: 674-8.

  19. Lui JL. Composite resin and reinforcement of flared canals using light-transmitting plastics posts. Quintessence Int 1994; 25: 313-319.

  20. Thomas J. Salinas, DDS, Michael S. Block, DMD, and Avishai Sadan, DMD2004 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons Fixed Partial Denture or Single-Tooth Implant Restoration? Statistical Considerations for Sequencing and Treatment. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 62:2-16, 2004, Suppl 2.

  21. Jones SD, Jones FR. Tissue-integrated implants for the partially edentulous patient. J Prosthet Dent 1988; 60: 349-54.

  22. Blomberg S, Lindquist LW. Psychological reactions to edentulousness and treatment with jawbone-anchored bridges. Act Psychiatr Scand 1983; 68: 251-62.

  23. Balshi TJ, Wolfinger GJ. Restoring lost vertical dimension of occlusion using dental implants: A clinical report. Int J Prosthodont 1996; 9: 473-8.

  24. Henke DA, Fridrich TA, Aquilino SA. Occlusal rehabilitation of a patient with dentinogenesis imperfect: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 1999; 81: 503-6.

  25. Kvist T, Reit C. The perceived benefit of endodontic retreatment. International Endodontic Journal 2002: 359-365.

  26. Phuong D, Doan, Goldstein GR. The use of a diagnostic matrix in the management of the severely worn dentition. J Prosthodont 2007; 16: 277-281.

  27. Pjetursson BE, Tan K, Lang NP, Bragger U, Egger M, Zwahlen M. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) after an observation period of at least 5 years. IV. Cantilever or extension FPDs. Clin Oral Implant Res 2004; 15: 625-642.

  28. Marchack et al Customization of milled zirconia copings for all-ceramic crowns: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2008; 99: 169-173.

  29. May KB et al. Precision of fit: The procera allceram crowns. J Prosthet Dent 1998; 80: 394-404.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com