34 posters,  2 topics,  91 authors,  54 institutions

ePostersLive® by SciGen® Technologies S.A. All rights reserved.

64
Complete arch implant supported fixed prostheses: Acrylic versus Ceramic

Primary tabs

Rate

No votes yet

Statistics

579 reads

COMPLETE–ARCH IMPLANT–SUPPORTED FIXED PROSTHESES: ACRYLIC VERSUS CERAMIC

Introduction: The selection of materials in implant-supported fixed prostheses plays a major role, because among them are many advantages and disadvantages which must be taken into consideration.  

Purpose:  The aim of the case report is to compare both prostheses individually assessing structure design, aesthetics, hygiene and weight as well as patient satisfaction over a period of time to evaluate aesthetics, phonetics, occlusion, safety/confidence and hygiene.

Materials and methods: At UNAM 64 year-old female patient presenting five years old metal – acrylic implant – supported fractured fixed prosthesis on five intraforaminal external connection implants. The management was to develop a metal-ceramic and a metal–acrylic prosthesis which were compared to each other, first metal–ceramic prosthesis was placed for five months at the time of change a series of questions about it was made; then the metal–acrylic prosthesis was placed after five months the same questions were made and she decided which prosthesis would like to use. 

Results: The opposing occlusion and structure design between the two prostheses are the most important factors to consider in choosing materials. The patient chose ceramic prosthesis.

Conclusions: Although no RCT’s studies between the two materials, we conclude that we can both get excellent results.

 

Enter Poster ID (e.gGoNextPreviousCurrent