Search

Statement of Problem: Implant-retained extraoral prostheses are an acceptable solution for patients with facial defects. However, these prostheses have a limited service life. Little has been reported on survival periods of implant-retained extraoral prostheses and prosthetic complications of this treatment modality., Purpose: The purpose of this study was to estimate the survival rates of implant-retained extraoral prostheses and to analyze the frequency of prosthetic complications., Material and Methods: Seventy patients were treated with implant-retained extraoral prostheses. Each patient was examined with respect to the prosthesis appearance and abutment and attachment component complications at 6-month intervals over a period of 10 to 46 months. The Kaplan-Meier survival estimation method was used for the first and subsequent prostheses. The reasons for remaking prostheses were recorded. Complications of the abutment and attachment components and the prostheses were recorded. Frequency of complications was evaluated. Data were analyzed using the Fisher exact test (alpha=.05)., Results: Thirty-two auricular, 25 orbital, and 13 nasal prostheses were evaluated. The Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed an estimated mean survival time of 14.5 months for the patients' first prostheses. The survival times for the first implant-retained auricular, orbital, and nasal prostheses were 14.1, 13.4, and 17.6 months, respectively. The survival times for the second implant-retained auricular, orbital, and nasal prostheses were 14.4, 15.3, and 14.0 months, respectively., Conclusions: Implant-retained extraoral prostheses had limited survival rates. The primary reasons for making new prostheses were discoloration, tearing, and mechanical failures of the acrylic resin substructure or retentive elements. Common complications were the need for clip activation, loosening of bar screws and abutments, and loss of attachment between silicone and the acrylic resin substructure. (J Prosthet Dent 2010;103:118-126).

Statement of Problem: In implant prosthodontics an accurate fit of the framework to the supporting implants is paramount. However, microgaps occur, unknown to the clinician until complications arise that implicate errors in fit. Therefore prosthodontics would welcome a tool or instrument that provides an objective evaluation of the fit at the implant prosthodontic interface., Purpose: This clinical investigation determined whether a correlation existed between the laboratory laser measurement of the abutment analog-framework fit and the intraoral abutment-framework fit as measured by the Periotest method., Material and Methods: Fifteen subjects received implant-supported remote fixed partial denture supported by five (11 subjects) or six (4 subjects) implants in the mandibular jaw opposed by a complete maxillary denture. Laser videography was used to quantify the fit of the framework to its respective master cast with six measurements, while the fit of the framework in the mouth was quantified with the Periotest method. Data were statistically analyzed with correlation analyses and multiple regression., Results: The overall correlation coefficient between the two methods was r = 0.51. Regression analysis of variance revealed that the intercept of the laser videography measurement was significant (p < or = 0.05). The mean Periotest values and standard deviation for the abutment-framework interface were negative (-7.3 +/- 1.2). The variance in part for the Periotest values was explained by the misfits in the vertical axis (delta Z, +0.471) and in the misfit direction of the centroids in the x-y plane (X-YVD, -0.244)., Conclusion: There was no single variable among the six measurement variables that strongly correlated with the periotest method in the identification of mistfit at the bearing surface as indicated by the Periotest value measurements. The misfit laser variables that were weakly correlated to the Periotest values should be observable clinically with greater scrutiny.

Practitioners will find multiple uses for Perm Gripper forceps. These crown remover forceps are likely to become an indispensable adjunct in the busy prosthodontic practice.

The use of implants in retaining orbital prostheses has gained favor in recent years. Not all patients may be candidates for use of medical adhesives or anatomic retention as advocated by some. Osseointegrated implants offer an alternative method for retaining an orbital prosthesis. Because of the confining nature of an orbital defect, it may be difficult to reproduce the spatial arrangement of implants accurately with one impression. The technique presented here accomplishes the objectives of minimal trauma to the tissues, accuracy, and elimination of consecutive impression technique.