(800) 854-7256 Main  |  (855) 289-9657 Case Pickup  |  My Account NEW

Principles of Implant Occlusion: Part 3 – Recommendations for Fixed Full-Arch Implant Prostheses

Principles of Implant Occlusion: Part 3 - Recommendations for Fixed Full-Arch Implant Prostheses
Launch Course

Course Objectives (1 CE Credit)

Randolph R. Resnik, DMD, MDS

To optimize the longevity of a completely implant-supported full-arch prosthesis, the correct occlusal scheme is of paramount importance. In this multimedia presentation, Dr. Randolph Resnik discusses the accepted and recognized ideal occlusal schemes for full-arch restorations with respect to functional and excursive positions of the mandible, including methods for reducing the biomechanical stress on the implant interface and maximizing the long-term success of the prosthesis. Topics include:

  • Advantages of fixed full-arch implant restorations
  • The introduction of monolithic zirconia in full-arch indications
  • Variables for rehabilitating the fully edentulous arch
  • Bilateral balanced occlusion
  • Group function occlusion
  • Mutually protected occlusion
  • Occlusal modifications for full-arch implant prostheses
  • The principles of implant-protected occlusion

Summary

Occlusion plays a major role in the functional and biological aspects of the full-arch implant-supported prosthesis, and the concept of implant-protected occlusion was developed to minimize the possibility of occlusal-related issues. Therefore, a properly developed and well-controlled occlusal scheme can reduce mechanical and biological complications, thus increasing the longevity of the prosthesis.

CAUTION: When viewing the techniques, procedures, theories and materials presented, you must make your own decisions about specific treatment for patients and exercise professional judgment regarding the need for further clinical testing or education and your own clinical expertise before trying to implement new procedures.


References

  1. Kern JS, Kern T, Wolfart S, Heussen N. A systematic review and meta‐analysis of removable and fixed implant‐supported prostheses in edentulous jaws: post‐loading implant loss. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016 Feb;27(2):174-95.
  2. Wright PS, Glantz PO, Randow K, Watson RM. The effects of fixed and removable implant-stabilized prostheses on posterior mandibular residual ridge resorption. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002 Apr;13(2):169-74.
  3. Castillo-Oyagüe R, Suárez-García MJ, Perea C, Río JD, Lynch CD, Gonzalo E, Torres-Lagares D, Preciado A. Validation of a new, specific, complete, and short OHRQoL scale (QoLFAST-10) for wearers of implant overdentures and fixed-detachable hybrid prostheses. J Dent. 2016 Jun;49:22-32.
  4. Müller F, Hernandez M, Grütter L, Aracil-Kessler L, Weingart D, Schimmel M. Masseter muscle thickness, chewing efficiency and bite force in edentulous patients with fixed and removable implant-supported prostheses: a cross-sectional multicenter study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 Feb;23(2):144-50.
  5. Misch CE. Contemporary implant dentistry. 3rd ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2007.
  6. Berglundh T, Persson L, Klinge B. A systematic review of the incidence of biological and technical complications in implant dentistry reported in prospective longitudinal studies of at least 5 years. J Clin Periodontol. 2002;29 Suppl 3:197-212.
  7. Stober T, Bermejo JL, Rammelsberg P, Schmitter M. Enamel wear caused by monolithic zirconia crowns after 6 months of clinical use. J Oral Rehabil. 2014 Apr;41(4):314-22.
  8. Carames J, Tovar Suinaga L, Yu YC, Pérez A, Kang M. Clinical advantages and limitations of monolithic zirconia restorations full arch implant supported reconstruction: case series. Int J Dent. 2015;2015:392496.
  9. Misch CE. Dental implant prosthetics. 2nd ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2014.
  10. Schuyler CH. Factors of occlusion applicable to restorative dentistry. J Prosthet Dent. 1953;3(6):772-82.
  11. Williamson EH, Lundquist D. Anterior guidance: its effect on electromyographic activity of the temporal and masseter muscles. J Prosthet Dent. 1983 Jun;49(6):816-23.
  12. Misch CE. Occlusal considerations for implant-supported prostheses: implant-protective occlusion. In: Misch CE, editor. Dental implant prosthetics. 2nd ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2014. p. 472-510.
  13. Kim Y, Oh TJ, Misch CE, Wang HL. Occlusal considerations in implant therapy: clinical guidelines with biomechanical rationale. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005 Feb;16(1):26-35.
  14. Lindquist LW, Rockler B, Carlsson GE. Bone resorption around fixtures in edentulous patients treated with mandibular fixed tissue-integrated prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 1988 Jan;59(1):59-63.
  15. Shackleton JL, Carr L, Slabbert JC, Becker PJ. Survival of fixed implant-supported prostheses related to cantilever lengths. J Prosthet Dent. 1994 Jan;71(1):23-6.
  16. Weinberg LA, Kruger B. A comparison of implant/prosthesis loading with four clinical variables. Int J Prosthodont. 1995 Sep-Oct;8(5):421-33.
Prev Course
Next Course

Subscribing Has Its Perks!


Offers on products you may already use
Introductory offers on new products
Educational materials