Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 122
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
 Table of Contents  
CASE REPORT
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 17  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 314-318

Custom abutments on tilted implants in the maxilla: A clinical report


Multidisciplinary Department of Medical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, Campania University Luigi Vanvitelli, Naples, Italy

Date of Web Publication14-Aug-2020

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Fabrizio Di Francesco
Multidisciplinary Department of Medical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, Campania University Luigi Vanvitelli, Via Luigi De Crecchio 6, Naples
Italy
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/1735-3327.292065

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 

The aim of this work is to describe a case of severe disparallelism between two implants supporting a cement-retained bridge, placed in the maxilla, employing two custom-angled abutments. Fractured abutment screw and fractured abutment involved two implant restorations in the maxilla. Once prosthetic components have been removed, a new prosthetic rehabilitation has been planned. The divergence between the implants was measured, obtaining an angle of divergence of 39°. Then, two custom-angled titanium abutments and two metal-ceramic splinted crowns were realized.

Keywords: Dental abutments, implant-abutment connection, implant-abutment design, implant-abutment interface


How to cite this article:
Francesco FD, De Marco G, Sommella A, Lanza A. Custom abutments on tilted implants in the maxilla: A clinical report. Dent Res J 2020;17:314-8

How to cite this URL:
Francesco FD, De Marco G, Sommella A, Lanza A. Custom abutments on tilted implants in the maxilla: A clinical report. Dent Res J [serial online] 2020 [cited 2021 Jun 13];17:314-8. Available from: https://www.drjjournal.net/text.asp?2020/17/4/314/292065


  Introduction Top


The implant-prosthodontic management of tilted implants represents one of the most daring challenges in implant dentistry. In several clinical situations, resorbed bone may result in no-parallel implants, which can cause disparities between the implant long axis and the abutment long axis. Several studies reported that angulated implants were not associated with an increased risk for bone loss and may be a satisfactory therapeutic choice to avoid grafting procedures.[1],[2],[3],[4] Nevertheless, no-parallel implants should be restored with preangled or custom-angled abutments to achieve prosthetically desired parallelism between implants and to make an appropriate fabrication of implant restoration.[1],[2],[3],[4],[5] Several studies showed no statistically significant differences between straight and angled abutments in terms of clinical performance. However, angled abutments may result in increased stress on the implants and adjacent bone. The stresses generated through off-axis loading increase in relation to the abutment angulation, but there is no consensus regarding what extent of angle increasing implant or bone failure. Nevertheless, the use of custom abutments may improve the prosthodontic management and biomecanics, in cases where tilted implants can occur.[1],[2],[3] Custom abutments can be used for cement- or screw-retained single crowns or cement-retained bridges. The benefits of the custom abutment include the possibility of using a high-performance ceramic material, individualize the position, the angulation, the emergence profile of abutment, and future crown margin position of the final restoration. In the literature, several cases of correction of the divergence between implants in maxillary or mandibular total rehabilitations, or in screw-retained single crown are described.[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10] However, data regarding the use of custom abutments on tilted implants for cement-retained bridges are poor. Then, the purpose of this work is to describe a case of severe disparallelism between two implants supporting a cement-retained bridge, placed in the maxilla, using two custom-angled abutments.


  Case Report Top


A 65-year-old female patient, nonsmoker, with stabilized chronic periodontitis and in good general health conditions presented a second degree mobility of cement-retained implant crown in first molar position (26), and gingival inflammation in second premolar position (25) where a fractured abutment was found. The implant-prosthodontic rehabilitation has been realized 3 years before our first visit. The patient did not report signs or symptoms of bruxism. The implants had been placed were: 3.5 mm × 11 mm for 25 and 4.0 mm × 9 mm for 26 positions (Astra Tech OsseoSpeed TX Dentsply-Internal-Hexagon). Clinical and radiographic examinations showed the fracture of the abutment in the 25 positions and a fracture of the screw-abutment in the 26 positions [Figure 1]. A diagnostic and therapeutic algorithm was employed, according to De Marco et al.[11] Prosthetic components have been removed [Figure 2]a and [Figure 2]b. Then, a preliminary radiographic examination and a careful clinical examination excluded signs and symptoms of mucositis and periimplantitis. Therefore, a new prosthetic rehabilitation has been planned [Figure 2]c. New healing abutments were applied for 2 weeks to reduce the gingival inflammation and to condition the transmucosal route again. The application of the pick-ups showed an important disparallelism, highlighted also by the examination of models [Figure 3]. Then, the impression was taken in alginate to make an individual impression tray. The window of the tray was very wide to compensate the extreme divergence of the fixtures. The implant impression is taken with a single-phase and single-component technique, using impregum polyether material-3M [Figure 4]. During the implant impression, the implants were not splinted to obtain a more elastic return of the material on the removal of the tray. Atlantis™ 3D software was performed to realize a virtual design of the individualized abutments and crowns [Figure 5] and [Figure 6]. The divergence between the fixtures in the mesiodistal projection was measured, obtaining an angle of divergence of 39° [Figure 7]. The software program for Atlantis abutments sets the finishing margins in relation to the free gingival margin, the patient's periodontal biotype, and the ideal level for easy and safe removal of excess cement. In this case, chamfer is the margin design and different heights were chosen, in particular, 1.5 mm subgingival in buccal and palatal views, 1.0 mm in mesial and distal views. Atlantis abutments were milled from a solid blank of titanium to fit the proprietary prosthetic platform [Figure 8]. Thus, the abutments and the structures are checked clinically and radiographically [Figure 9]. Two splinted metal-ceramic crowns were made, and finally, they were cemented with provisional cement Temp bond Kerr. Clinical and radiographic evidence shows a good integration of prosthesis to implants [Figure 10].
Figure 1: Clinical and radiographic examinations showed the fracture of the abutment of the 25 and a drilling-out crown corresponding to the 26.

Click here to view
Figure 2: (a) Abutment fractured of the 25 was removed, (b) Abutment screw fractured of the 26 was removed, (c) A radiographic examination excluded radiographical signs of peri-implantitis.

Click here to view
Figure 3: The examination of models showed an important disparallelism between implants.

Click here to view
Figure 4: A single-phase technique employing mono-component polyether was used for implant impression.

Click here to view
Figure 5: Atlantis three-dimensional editor was performed to realize a virtual design of the individualized abutments.

Click here to view
Figure 6: Atlantis three-dimensional editor was performed to realize a virtual design of the crowns.

Click here to view
Figure 7: The divergence between the fixtures in the mesiodistal projection was measured, obtaining an angle of divergence of 39°.

Click here to view
Figure 8: Two custom titanium abutments were realized.

Click here to view
Figure 9: The abutments and the structures are checked clinically and radiographically.

Click here to view
Figure 10: Clinical and radiographic evidence shows a good integration of prosthesis to implants.

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


Nowadays, a lack of parallelism among implants may be reduced to almost 0°. This allows to preserve the stiffness of the abutments, their retentive and stabilizing capacity, guaranteeing easy access to the screw-abutments, and ensuring all levels of implant shoulders in iuxta gingival zone, which simplifies routine oral hygiene. Custom abutments are able to correct angulation when implants are placed in tilted positions. Custom abutments provide better potential than stock abutments for ideal crown contours and peri-implant soft-tissue support, leading to optimal esthetic results.[12],[13] Custom abutments show a lot of advantages such as an optimized emergence profile by tooth-based design, a better distribution of stress and load, a positioning of shoulder's abutments at custom levels, an excellent ratio between the volume of the abutment and the volume of the secondary structure, which determines a high biomechanical resistance.[14] Furthermore, the amount of undetected cement can be easily inspected both clinically and radiographically. In the present case report, custom-angled abutments have been created in order to achieve a parallel path of insertion and separation between the implant crowns. Since their interfaces do not require manipulation after machining, custom abutments have the potential to provide the most accurate fit of any abutment type. Several studies showed that in clinical situations where disparallelism between implants can occur, angulated abutments may result in a better distribution of stress and emergence profile, and a better oral hygiene.[12],[13],[14],[15] When a modified prefabricated abutment was compared with a custom abutment, the cost of a custom abutment is lower. In addition, considering the shortage of qualified laboratory technicians, manufacturing of custom abutment reduces time performing prosthetic components.[15] Custom abutments have better physical properties since the material is processed from a homogeneous mass under more controlled conditions, with no need for abutment inventory.[12],[16] Moreover, most clinical situations are more easily resolved with the software developed for the design and fabrication of the custom abutments.[16] Several studies showed that the angle of the abutments does not affect the clinical performance.[1],[2],[4],[15],[16] Celletti et al.[15] reported through a 1-year histological study that the angulation of abutments has no effect on bone levels around implants. Eger et al.[3] showed there is no difference between straight and angled abutments in terms of clinical parameters such as gingival inflammation, probing depth, attack level, and mobility. As far as implant impression is concerned, angulated implants may result in an inaccurate impression, and the impression technique may affect the accuracy of the definitive cast.[17] A pick-up impression technique was preferred in the described case. However, the implants were not splinted in order to obtain a more elastic return of the material on the removal of the tray. The accuracy of the impression is a crucial step in order to design a prosthesis with a good fit, as a misfit would lead to mechanical and biological complications such as fracture of the implant and plaque accumulation with an unfavorable reaction of hard and soft tissues.[16] An accurate and precise impression will allow to obtain an accurate and passive prosthesis and therefore a long-term success of the restoration.[16],[17],[18] The placement of implants with different angles may increase the distortion of the impression material on removal.[16],[17],[18] However, the relation between the angulation effect and the number of the implant is a topic still to be discussed.[18] The recommended impression materials are the polyether and polyvinyl siloxane materials for their dimensional stability, rigidity, and tear resistance.[18] According to Reddy et al.[17] there is no significant difference in dimensional accuracy in the resulting casts, using the polyether in no angled and angled implants. Otherwise, Schmidt et al.,[18] comparing polyether and polyvinyl siloxane impression materialsin vitro study, showed that impressions with polyvinyl siloxane exhibited the highest transfer precision. The described case report showed hydrophilic properties of impregum polyether impression material. These features are essential in terms of initial wettability, detail reproduction, quality of pouring and therefore to clinically receive high qualitative impressions.


  Conclusion Top


From our experience, custom-angled abutment is a valid prosthodontic solution to achieve the prosthetic parallelism between implants, making an accurate implant-prosthodontic rehabilitation.

Declaration of patient consent

The authors certify that they have obtained all appropriate patient consent forms. In the form the patient(s) has/have given his/her/their consent for his/her/their images and other clinical information to be reported in the journal. The patients understand that their names and initials will not be published and due efforts will be made to conceal their identity, but anonymity cannot be guaranteed.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare that they have no conflicts of interest, real or perceived, financial or non-financial in this article.



 
  References Top

1.
Egbert N, Ahuja S, Selecman A, Wicks R. Angulated implants for fabrication of implant supported fixed partial denture in the maxilla. J Dent (Shiraz) 2017;18:304-13.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Grossmann Y, Madjar D. Prosthetic treatment for severely misaligned implants: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2002;88:259-62.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Eger DE, Gunsolley JC, Feldman S. Comparison of angled and standard abutments and their effect on clinical outcomes: A preliminary report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:819-23.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Tilted versus axially placed dental implants: A meta-analysis. J Dent 2015;43:149-70.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Mayer Y, Machtei EE. Divergence correction associated with implant placement: A radiographic study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24:1033-9.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Pelekanos S, Pozidi G, Kourtis S. Restoration of divergent implants with a 2-piece screw-retained fixed, complete dental implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2016;115:389-92.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Di Francesco F, De Marco G, Gironi Carnevale UA, Lanza M, Lanza A. The number of implants required to support a maxillary overdenture: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthodont Res 2019;63:15-24.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Khadivi V. Correcting a nonparallel implant abutment for a mandibular overdenture retained by two implants: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2004;92:216-9.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Bilhan H. An alternative method to treat a case with severe maxillary atrophy by the use of angled implants instead of complicated augmentation procedures: A case report. J Oral Implantol 2008;34:47-51.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
de Avila ED, de Molon RS, de Barros-Filho LA, de Andrade MF, Mollo Fde A Jr., de Barros LA. Correction of malpositioned implants through periodontal surgery and prosthetic rehabilitation using angled abutment. Case Rep Dent 2014;2014:702630.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
De Marco G, Di Francesco F, Lanza A. Analysis and management of implant-prosthetic complications: Description of a diagnostic and therapeutic algorithm with a clinical case. J Prosthodont Res 2018;62:386-90.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Lang LA, Sierraalta M, Hoffensperger M, Wang RF. Evaluation of the precision of fit between the procera custom abutment and various implant systems. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003;18:652-8.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Schepke U, Meijer HJ, Kerdijk W, Raghoebar GM, Cune M. Stock versus CAD/CAM customized zirconia implant abutments – Clinical and patient-based outcomes in a randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2017;19:74-84.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Kim ES, Shin SY. Influence of the implant abutment types and the dynamic loading on initial screw loosening. J Adv Prosthodont 2013;5:21-8.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Celletti R, Pameijer CH, Bracchetti G, Donath K, Persichetti G, Visani I. Histologic evaluation of osseointegrated implants restored in nonaxial functional occlusion with preangled abutments. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1995;15:562-73.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Conrad HJ, Pesun IJ, DeLong R, Hodges JS. Accuracy of two impression techniques with angulated implants. J Prosthet Dent 2007;97:349-56.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Reddy S, Prasad K, Vakil H, Jain A, Chowdhary R. Accuracy of impressions with different impression materials in angulated implants. Niger J Clin Pract 2013;16:279-84.  Back to cited text no. 17
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
18.
Schmidt A, Häussling T, Rehmann P, Schaaf H, Wöstmann B. Accuracy of various impression materials and methods for two implant systems: An effect size study. J Prosthodont Res 2018;62:245-51.  Back to cited text no. 18
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5], [Figure 6], [Figure 7], [Figure 8], [Figure 9], [Figure 10]



 

Top
 
 
Search
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Case Report
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Article Figures

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed707    
    Printed14    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded171    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal