No abstract

Provisional restorations for single implants have evolved from temporary expedients during osseous and soft tissue integration to critical therapeutic tools used to assess patient expectations, communicate with the laboratory, and optimize definitive implant treatment. The selection of the type of provisional restoration may significantly influence esthetics during the period of implant integration and soft tissue healing. However, it is unlikely that there is a direct correlation between the type of provisional restoration used and the esthetic outcome of the definitive prosthesis.

No abstract

No abstract

Screw-retained single-implant crowns should be reconsidered for many clinical situations for the following reasons: Predictable retention and retrievability No potential for the biologic consequences associated with residual cement As with cement-retained restorations, the choice between metal ceramics or all ceramics Only one margin, at the implant/abutment interface A single abutment/crown ceramic margin that can extend gingivally to the implant interface Nearly imperceptible blend of a composite resin in ceramic abutment access openings One component instead of two, which may simplify the restorative process CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Innovations in implant and ceramic technology now give screw-retained prostheses the potential for esthetic, functional, and biologic outcomes that are comparable to those for cement-retained prostheses, while providing the advantages of predictable retrievability and avoidance of residual cement. Angled implants, however, remain a major indication for cement-retained single-implant prostheses. (J Esthet Restor Dent 29:161-171, 2017).

No abstract

Both Camper's plane and the horizontal reference plane may be acceptable initial reference planes for oral rehabilitation, but additional anatomic and esthetic parameters are required for verification of an esthetically pleasing occlusal plane angle.

Objective This second of a two‐part series reviews the single dental implant as the most current treatment alternative for replacement of a missing or lost maxillary lateral incisor. Assessments of dental maturity for implant placement, implant space requirements, surgical and restorative influence on soft tissue profiles, and implant success are reviewed. Overview Recent data indicates that implant success rates are high, and esthetics and soft tissue profiles appear to be stable for maxillary lateral incisor implants. Implant placement should be assessed by dental maturity of the specific patient as opposed to chronological age, and implant spacing should be developed and assessed by all team members. Conclusions Implant replacement of a missing lateral incisor is a predictable treatment mode if implant placement is deferred until dental maturity and then accurately placed in a well‐developed site. Treatment involves more complicated planning and execution from team members than other alternatives, but innovations in techniques and materials render it a favorable alternative for lateral incisor replacement. Clinical significance Implant restoration of a missing or lost maxillary lateral incisor is surgically and restoratively more complex than space closure or a resin‐bonded fixed dental prosthesis but demonstrates high success rates and high esthetic potential when team members follow strict treatment protocols.