Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer

I-physio profile designer concept: How to avoid conventional impression

Abstract

Objective: Present a new technique réduction the clinical steps of implant placement and impression for crown on implant. Develop the concept of gingival sculpting with I-physio healing abutments.Methods:This case presentation shows how to use the new concept of I-physio profile designer abutment to shape the gingiva during healing and use this abutment for impression before placing the final crown.Results: This simplified procedure shows that I-physio profile designer abutments reduce the clinical and prosthetic steps in implantology.Conclusion: In the future, implantology and prosthodontics on implants will certainly benefit from this technique and improve the long-term results for the patients.
Section

References

  1. Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T, et Lindhe J. The mucosal
  2. barrier following abutment dis/reconnection. An experimental study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol 1997;24: 568-572.
  3. Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T, Sekino S, et al. Tissue reactions to abutment shift: an experimental study in dogs.
  4. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2003;5: 82-88.
  5. Wang QQ, Dai R, Cao CY, et al.-One-time versus repeated
  6. abutment connection for platform-switched implant: A
  7. systematicreview and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2017;12:
  8. e0186385.
  9. Nevins M, Parma-Benfenati S, Sava C, et al. Clinical and
  10. histologic evaluations of immediately placed SLA dental implants. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2018;38:
  11. -170.
  12. Chochlidakis KM Papaspyridakos P, Geminiani A, et al.
  13. Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet
  14. Dent 2016;116: 184-190.
  15. Vercruyssen M1, De Laat A, Coucke W, et al. An RCT
  16. comparing patient-centred outcome variables of guided
  17. surgery (bone or mucosa supported) with conventional
  18. implant placement. J Clin Periodontol 2014;41: 724-732.
  19. Fortin T, Hauschild T, Colombo M, et al. Applications
  20. cliniques et efficience du numerique en chirurgie implantaire analyse critique basée sur la littérature. L’information
  21. dentaire n° 16 19 avril 2007: 48-53.
  22. Vercruyssen ML, Cox C, Coucke W, et al. A randomized
  23. clinical trial comparing guided implant surgery (bone- or
  24. mucosa-supported) with mental navigation or the use of a
  25. pilot-drill template. J Clin Periodontol 2014;41: 717-723.
  26. Joda T, Brägger U.- Patient-centered outcomes comparing
  27. digital and conventional implant impression procedures:
  28. a randomized crossover trial. Clin Oral Implants Res
  29. ;27.
  30. Zehra F.- Prothèse supra implantaire: un protocole
  31. numerique innovant. Dentoscope n° 2015;131: 31-33.
  32. Joda T, Bragger U. Time efficiency analysing comparing
  33. digital and conventionnal workflows for implants crowns:
  34. a prospective clinical crossover trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac
  35. Implants 2015;30.
  36. Joda T, Katsoulis J, Brägger U. Clinical Fitting and
  37. Adjustment Time for Implant-Supported Crowns
  38. Comparing Digital and Conventional Workflows. Clin
  39. Implant Dent Relat Res 2016;18.
  40. Davarpanah M, Rajzbaum P, Szmukler-Moncler S,
  41. et al. Prothèse implantaire: la disruption numérique L’
  42. Information. Dentaire 2018;31: 24-32.
  43. Joda T, Brägger U. Digital vs. conventional implant prosthetic workflows: a cost/time analysis. Clin Oral Implants
  44. Res 2015;26: 1430-1435.
  45. Bondil X. Prevention des periimplantites liées aux excès de
  46. ciments. L’information dentaire 2018;30: 22-28.
  47. Duroux J, Collangettes M, Travers C, et al. Empreinte
  48. optique, CFAO et profil d'émergence :à propos d'un cas
  49. clinique. Implant 2017;3.
  50. Lee BC, Jung GY, Kim DJ, et al. Initial bacterial
  51. adhesion on resin, titanium and zirconia in vitro. J Adv
  52. Prosthodont 2011;3: 81-84.

How to Cite

Michel, L. J., & J.F, M. (2019). I-physio profile designer concept: How to avoid conventional impression. Journal of Dentomaxillofacial Science, 4(3), 184–187. https://doi.org/10.15562/jdmfs.v4i3.1015

HTML
159

Total
1619

Share

Search Panel