The use of abutment angle in the prosthetic rehabilitation about implants. A case presentation.

Authors

  • Alberto Acosta Pantoja Hospital provincial Carlos Manuel de Céspedes. Bayamo.
  • René Abel Salso Morell Clínica Universitaria de Especialidades Estomatológicas “General Manuel Jesús Cedeño Infante”. Bayamo.
  • Marlenis Iglesias Prats Clínica Universitaria de Especialidades Estomatológicas “General Manuel Jesús Cedeño Infante”. Bayamo.

Keywords:

DENTAL ABUTMENTS, DENTAL IMPLANTS/adverse effects

Abstract

The prosthetic rehabilitation through implants constitutes a therapy of paramount acceptance by the affected patients due to the edentulous process. Nevertheless the possibilities of its application is sometimes diminished by several factors of the patients like: the position of the maxillary sinus, the bone reabsorptions and vestibular undermined that are presented due to the fractures of the vestibular charts during the exodontias. The place of the implant with   a degree of angulation constitutes a solution for surgeons in order to avoid these structures and looking for a better bone availability. However it   is against   the proper rehabilitation when it gets separated from the parallelism of the adjacent teeth, affecting the aesthetic factor. The use of prosthetic abutment angles to correct the implants angulation is an alternative of the prosthesis specialists to obtain an adequate treatment. It is presented a clinical case where this technique is evidenced, as well as its advantagest.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Cacciacane OT. Bases para el tratamiento implanto-protésico. Buenos Aires; 2003.

2. Consideraciones básicas en Implantología oral, indicaciones, contraindicaciones. Pronóstico, complicaciones y fracasos.[Artículo en Internet] 2009 [Consultado 3 Abril 2009] Disponible en: http://scielo.sld.cu/pdf/rhcm/v8n4/rhcm28409.pdf

3. Bidez MW. Transmisión de fuerzas en implantes odontológicos. J Oral Implant 2002; 18:264-74.

4. Cano Sánchez J, Martínez-González JM, Gonzalo Lafuente JC, Cantero Álvarez M, Barona Dorado C. Superficie de los implantes dentales: estado actual. Quintessence 2004; 5:301-8.

5. Grunder U, Polizzi G, Goene R. A 3 year prospective multicenter follow up report on the inmediate and delayed placement of implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999; 14: 210-6.

6. Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P. The long-term efficacy of cur¬rently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Impl 1986;1: 11-25.

7. Martínez-González JM, Cano J, Campo J, Martínez MJS, García-Sabán F. Diseño de los implantes dentales: Estado actual. Av Periodon Implantol 2002; 14: 129-36

8. Hermann JS, Cochran DL, Nummikoski PV, Buser D. Crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A radiographic evaluation of unloated nonsubmerged and submerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontal 1997; 68:1117-30.

9. Isidor F. Loss of osseointegration caused by oclusal load of oral im¬plants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996; 7: 143-52.

Published

2011-04-06

How to Cite

1.
Acosta Pantoja A, Salso Morell RA, Iglesias Prats M. The use of abutment angle in the prosthetic rehabilitation about implants. A case presentation. RM [Internet]. 2011 Apr. 6 [cited 2025 Jun. 3];15(2). Available from: https://revmultimed.sld.cu/index.php/mtm/article/view/1549

Issue

Section

CASOS CLÍNICOS