Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Head & Face Medicine 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Methodology

A new concept for implant-borne dental rehabilitation; how to overcome the biological weak-spot of conventional dental implants?

Authors: Nils-Claudius Gellrich, Björn Rahlf, Rüdiger Zimmerer, Philipp-Cornelius Pott, Majeed Rana

Published in: Head & Face Medicine | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Every endosseous dental implant is dependent on an adequate amount and quality of peri-implant hard and soft tissues and their fully functional interaction. The dental implant could fail in cases of insufficient bone and soft tissues or due to a violation of the soft to hard tissues to implant shoulder interface with arising of a secondary bone loss.

Method

To overcome this biological weak-spot, we designed a new implant that allows for multi vector endosseous anchorage around the individual underlying bone, which has to be scanned by computed tomography (CT) or Cone beam CT (CBCT) technique to allow for planning the implant. We developed a workflow to digitally engineer this customized implant made up of two planning steps. First, the implant posts are designed by prosthodontic-driven backward planning, and a wireframe-style framework is designed on the individual bony surface of the recipient site. Next, the two pieces are digitally fused and manufactured as a single piece implant using the SLM technique (selective laser melting) and titanium-alloy-powder.

Results

Preoperative FEM-stress-test of the individual implant is possible before it is inserted sterile in an out-patient procedure.

Conclusion

Unlike any other historical or current dental implant protocol, our newly developed “individual patient solutions dental” follows the principle of a fully functional and rigid osteosynthesis technology and offers a quick solution for an implant-borne dental rehabilitation in difficult conditions of soft and hard tissues.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Aaboe M, Schou S, Hjorting-Hansen E, Helbo M, Vikjaer D. Osseointegration of subperiosteal implants using bovine bone substitute and various membranes. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2000;11:51–8.CrossRefPubMed Aaboe M, Schou S, Hjorting-Hansen E, Helbo M, Vikjaer D. Osseointegration of subperiosteal implants using bovine bone substitute and various membranes. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2000;11:51–8.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Albrektsson T, Canullo L, Cochran D, De Bruyn H. “Peri-implantitis”: A complication of a foreign body or a man-made “disease”. Facts and fiction. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2016;18:840–9.CrossRefPubMed Albrektsson T, Canullo L, Cochran D, De Bruyn H. “Peri-implantitis”: A complication of a foreign body or a man-made “disease”. Facts and fiction. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2016;18:840–9.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Benjamin LS. Long-term retrospective studies on the ct-scan, cad/cam, one-stage surgery hydroxyapatite-coated subperiosteal implants, including human functional retrievals. Dent Clin N Am. 1992;36:77–93. discussion 94-75PubMed Benjamin LS. Long-term retrospective studies on the ct-scan, cad/cam, one-stage surgery hydroxyapatite-coated subperiosteal implants, including human functional retrievals. Dent Clin N Am. 1992;36:77–93. discussion 94-75PubMed
5.
go back to reference Bormann KH, Suarez-Cunqueiro MM, von See C, Tavassol F, Dissmann JP, Ruecker M, et al. Forty sandwich osteotomies in atrophic mandibles: A retrospective study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011;69:1562–70.CrossRefPubMed Bormann KH, Suarez-Cunqueiro MM, von See C, Tavassol F, Dissmann JP, Ruecker M, et al. Forty sandwich osteotomies in atrophic mandibles: A retrospective study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011;69:1562–70.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Champy M, Wilk A, Schnebelen JM. Tretment of mandibular fractures by means of osteosynthesis without intermaxillary immobilization according to F.X. Michelet's technic. Zahn Mund Kieferheilkd Zentralbl. 1975;63:339–41.PubMed Champy M, Wilk A, Schnebelen JM. Tretment of mandibular fractures by means of osteosynthesis without intermaxillary immobilization according to F.X. Michelet's technic. Zahn Mund Kieferheilkd Zentralbl. 1975;63:339–41.PubMed
7.
go back to reference Champy M, Wilk A, Lodde JP, Grasset D. Facial osteotomies without fixation. Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac. 1977;78:75–80.PubMed Champy M, Wilk A, Lodde JP, Grasset D. Facial osteotomies without fixation. Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac. 1977;78:75–80.PubMed
8.
go back to reference Cranin AN, Klein M, Ley JP, Andrews J, DiGregorio R. An in vitro comparison of the computerized tomography/cad-cam and direct bone impression techniques for subperiosteal implant model generation. J Oral Implantol. 1998;24:74–9.CrossRefPubMed Cranin AN, Klein M, Ley JP, Andrews J, DiGregorio R. An in vitro comparison of the computerized tomography/cad-cam and direct bone impression techniques for subperiosteal implant model generation. J Oral Implantol. 1998;24:74–9.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Disegi JA, Wyss H. Implant materials for fracture fixation: a clinical perspective. Orthopedics. 1989;12:75–9.PubMed Disegi JA, Wyss H. Implant materials for fracture fixation: a clinical perspective. Orthopedics. 1989;12:75–9.PubMed
10.
go back to reference Garefis PN. Complete mandibular subperiosteal implants for edentulous mandibles. J Prosthet Dent. 1978;39:670–7.CrossRefPubMed Garefis PN. Complete mandibular subperiosteal implants for edentulous mandibles. J Prosthet Dent. 1978;39:670–7.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Golec TS. Cad-cam multiplanar diagnostic imaging for subperiosteal implants. Dent Clin N Am. 1986;30:85–95.PubMed Golec TS. Cad-cam multiplanar diagnostic imaging for subperiosteal implants. Dent Clin N Am. 1986;30:85–95.PubMed
13.
go back to reference Hjorting-Hansen E, Helbo M, Aaboe M, Gotfredsen K, Pinholt EM. Osseointegration of subperiosteal implant via guided tissue regeneration. A pilot study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1995;6:149–54.CrossRefPubMed Hjorting-Hansen E, Helbo M, Aaboe M, Gotfredsen K, Pinholt EM. Osseointegration of subperiosteal implant via guided tissue regeneration. A pilot study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1995;6:149–54.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Pabst AM, Walter C, Ehbauer S, Zwiener I, Ziebart T, Al-Nawas B, et al. Analysis of implant-failure predictors in the posterior maxilla: A retrospective study of 1395 implants. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2015;43:414–20.CrossRefPubMed Pabst AM, Walter C, Ehbauer S, Zwiener I, Ziebart T, Al-Nawas B, et al. Analysis of implant-failure predictors in the posterior maxilla: A retrospective study of 1395 implants. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2015;43:414–20.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Rana M, Warraich R, Kokemuller H, Lemound J, Essig H, Tavassol F, et al. Reconstruction of mandibular defects - clinical retrospective research over a 10-year period. Head Neck Oncol. 2011;3:23.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Rana M, Warraich R, Kokemuller H, Lemound J, Essig H, Tavassol F, et al. Reconstruction of mandibular defects - clinical retrospective research over a 10-year period. Head Neck Oncol. 2011;3:23.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
go back to reference Schilli W, Ewers R, Niederdellmann H. Bone fixation with screws and plates in the maxillo-facial region. Int J Oral Surg. 1981;10:329–32.PubMed Schilli W, Ewers R, Niederdellmann H. Bone fixation with screws and plates in the maxillo-facial region. Int J Oral Surg. 1981;10:329–32.PubMed
18.
go back to reference Schramm A, Gellrich NC, Schimming R, Schmelzeisen R. Computer-assisted insertion of zygomatic implants (branemark system) after extensive tumor surgery. Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir. 2000;4:292–5.CrossRefPubMed Schramm A, Gellrich NC, Schimming R, Schmelzeisen R. Computer-assisted insertion of zygomatic implants (branemark system) after extensive tumor surgery. Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir. 2000;4:292–5.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Schwarz F, Becker K, Sahm N, Horstkemper T, Rousi K, Becker J. The prevalence of peri-implant diseases for two-piece implants with an internal tube-in-tube connection: A cross-sectional analysis of 512 implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28:24–8.CrossRefPubMed Schwarz F, Becker K, Sahm N, Horstkemper T, Rousi K, Becker J. The prevalence of peri-implant diseases for two-piece implants with an internal tube-in-tube connection: A cross-sectional analysis of 512 implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28:24–8.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Stoler A. Helical ct scanning for cad/cam subperiosteal implant construction. J Oral Implantol. 1996;22:247–57.PubMed Stoler A. Helical ct scanning for cad/cam subperiosteal implant construction. J Oral Implantol. 1996;22:247–57.PubMed
Metadata
Title
A new concept for implant-borne dental rehabilitation; how to overcome the biological weak-spot of conventional dental implants?
Authors
Nils-Claudius Gellrich
Björn Rahlf
Rüdiger Zimmerer
Philipp-Cornelius Pott
Majeed Rana
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Head & Face Medicine / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1746-160X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13005-017-0151-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Head & Face Medicine 1/2017 Go to the issue