John III Beumer - Fundamentals of Implant Dentistry

80.Ender A, Mehl A. In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions. Quintessence Int 2015;46:9–17.

81.Flügge TV, Schlager S, Nelson K, Nahles S, Matzger MC. Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;144:471–478.

82.Basaki K, Alkumru H, De Souza G, Finer Y. Accuracy of digital vs conventional implant impression approach: A three- dimensional comparative in vitro analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant 2017;32:792–799.

83.Lin WS, Harris BT, Elathamna EN, Abdel-Azim T, Morton D. Effect of implant divergence on the accuracy of definitive casts created from traditional and digital implant-level impressions: An in vitro comparative study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015;30:102–109.

84.Giménez B, Pradíes G, Martínez-Rus F, Özcan M. Accuracy of two digital implant impression systems based on confocal microscopy with variations in customized software and clinical parameters. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015;30:56–64.

85.Alsharbaty MHM, Alikhasi M, Zarrati S, Shamshiri AR. A clinical comparative study of 3-dimensional accuracy between digital and conventional implant impression techniques. J Prosthodont 2019;28:e902–e908.

86.Drago CJ, Peterson T. Treatment of an edentulous patient with CAD/CAM technology: A clinical report. J Prosthodont 2007;16:200–208.

87.Abduo J, Bennamoun M, Tennant M. Influence of conventional and digital wax-ups on axial tooth contour. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2015;35:e50–e59.

88.Abduo J, Bennamoun M, Tennant M, McGeachie J. Impact of digital prosthodontic planning on dental esthetics: Biometric analysis of esthetic parameters. J Prosthet Dent 2016;115:57–64.

89.AlHelal A, Goodacre BJ, Kattadiyil MT, Swamidass R. Errors associated with digital preview of computer-engineered complete dentures and guidelines for reducing them: A technique article. J Prosthet Dent 2018;119:17–25.

90.Mehl A, Blanz V, Hickel R. Biogeneric tooth: A new mathematical representation for tooth morphology in lower first molars. Eur J Oral Sci 2005;113:333–340.

91.Mehl A, Blanz V, Hickel R. A new mathematical process for the calculation of average forms of teeth. J Prosthet Dent 2005;94:561–566.

92.Ender A, Mörmann WH, Mehl A. Efficiency of a mathematical model in generating CAD/CAM-partial crowns with natural tooth morphology. Clin Oral Investig 2011;15:283–289.

93.Probst FA, Mehl A. CAD reconstruction using contralateral mirrored anterior teeth: A 3-dimensional metric and visual evaluation. Int J Prosthodont 2008;21:521–523.

94.Kordass B, Gärtner C, Söhnel A, et al. The virtual articulator in dentistry: Concept and development. Dent Clin North Am 2002;46:493–506.

95.Koralakunte PR, Aljanakh M. The role of virtual articulator in prosthetic and restorative dentistry. J Clin Diagn Res 2014;8:ZE25–ZE28.

96.Abduo J, Bennamoun M, Tennant M, McGeachie J. Effect of prosthodontic planning on intercuspal occlusal contacts: Comparison of digital and conventional planning. Comput Biol Med 2015;60:143–150.

97.Solaberrieta E, Minguez R, Barrenetxea L, Otegi JR, Szentpétery A. Comparison of the accuracy of a 3-dimensional virtual method and the conventional method for transferring the maxillary cast to a virtual articulator. J Prosthet Dent 2015;113:191–197.

98.Belser UC, Mericske-Stern R, Bernard JP, Taylor TD. Prosthetic management of the partially dentate patient with fixed implant restorations. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000;11(1 suppl):126–145.

99.Buser D, Martin W, Belser UC. Optimizing esthetics for implant restorations in the anterior maxilla: Anatomic and surgical considerations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004;(suppl 19):43–61.

100.Ramasamy M, Giri, Raja R, Subramonian, Karthik, Narendrakumar R. Implant surgical guides: From the past to the present. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2013;5(suppl 1):S98–S102.

101.Lozada JL, Garbacea A, Goodacre CJ, Kattadiyil MT. Use of a digitally planned and fabricated mandibular complete denture for easy conversion to an immediately loaded provisional fixed complete denture. Part 1. Planning and surgical phase. Int J Prosthodont 2014;27:417–421.

102.D’Haese J, Ackhurst J, Wismeijer D, De Bruyn H, Tahmaseb A. Current state of the art of computer-guided implant surgery. Periodontol 2000 2017;73:121–133.

103.Tahmaseb A, Wismeijer D, Coucke W, Derksen W. Computer technology applications in surgical implant dentistry: A systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29(suppl):25–42.

104.Colombo M, Mangano C, Mijiritsky E, Krebs M, Hauschild U, Fortin T. Clinical applications and effectiveness of guided implant surgery: A critical review based on randomized controlled trials. BMC Oral Health 2017;17:150.

105.Bencharit S, Staffen A, Yeung M,Whitley D 3rd, Laskin DM, Deeb GR. In vivo tooth-supported implant surgical guides fabricated with desktop stereolithographic printers: Fully guided surgery is more accurate than partially guided surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2018;76:1431–1439.

106.Barazanchi A, Li KC, Al-Amleh B, Lyons K, Waddell JN. Additive technology: Update on current materials and applications in dentistry. J Prosthodont 2017;26:156–163.

107.Parpaiola A, Norton MR, Cecchinato D, Bressan E, Toia M. Virtual abutment design: A concept for delivery of CAD/CAM customized abutments—Report of a retrospective cohort. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2013;33:51–58.

108.Priest G. Virtual-designed and computer-milled implant abutments. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005;63(9 suppl 2):22–32.

109.Garine WN, Funkenbusch PD, Ercoli C, Wodenscheck J, Murphy WC. Measurement of the rotational misfit and implant-abutment gap of all-ceramic abutments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007;22:928–938.

110.Baldassarri M, Hjerppe J, Romeo D, Fickl S, Thompson VP, Stappert CF. Marginal accuracy of three implant-ceramic abutment configurations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:537–543.

111.Alikhasi M, Monzavi A, Bassir SH, Naini RB, Khosronedjad N, Kashavarz S. A comparison of precision of fit, rotational freedom, and torque loss with copy-milled zirconia and prefabricated titanium abutments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:996–1002.

112.Cristache CM, Gurbanescu S. Accuracy evaluation of a stereolithographic surgical template for dental implant insertion using 3D superimposition protocol. Int J Dent 2017; 2017:4292081.

113.Deeb GR, Allen RK, Hall VP, Whitley D 3rd, Laskin DM, Bencharit S. How accurate are implant surgical guides produced with desktop stereolithographic 3-dimentional printers? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017;75:2559.

II

Restoration of Edentulous Patients

CHAPTER 6

Edentulous Patients: Patterns of Bone Resorption and Clinical Outcomes with Implants

Neal Garrett | Ichiro Nishimura | Sunyoung Ma | Karl M. Lyons

Many patients are able to function effectively and comfortably with conventional complete dentures, with percentages of patients reporting moderate to high levels of denture satisfaction frequently over 80%. 1– 4However, some patients have difficulty adapting to or accepting conventional dentures (CDs) for a variety of reasons. For certain patients, the existing denture-bearing surfaces do not provide sufficient retention, stability, and support to ensure effective function of the mandible denture. This difficulty with unstable and poorly retained and supported mandibular CDs was a critical factor in the development of dental implants. Even in patients with reasonable denture-bearing surfaces, common mandibular denture movement during oral function may compromise the patient’s ability to simultaneously control the mandibular denture and the food bolus, leading to additional impairment in mastication and comfort. Therefore, several essential questions arise regarding implant-retained mandibular overdentures: