Partner Magazine logo 10

13 CASE STUDY Fig. 20: The impression posts were screwed in for the open impression.... Fig. 22: The individualized impression posts en- sure precise transfer of the soft tissue situation to the master model. Fig. 21: ... and the emergence profile filled with self-curing resin. Fig. 26: The illustration shows the shaped emergence profile, the gingiva profile and the location of the cervical step. Fig. 28: The abutments and the crown frameworks are implemented in zirconium dioxide. Fig. 27: The abutments were digitally designed. The scanned gingival mask and the wax-up serve for orientation. Fig. 29: The try-in of the abutments in the mouth assured that the profile and the position of the preparation margin was optimally located. Fig. 31: Following slight shade corrections, the surface of the crowns was polished. Fig. 30: After the functional and esthetic try-in, the dental technician finalized the zirconium crowns in the lab. Discussion Histologically, the soft tissue around implants has little in common with the periodontium of healthy teeth with their complex ligament apparatus. It tends to be more a crude scar tissue, which can be shaped in a purely mechanical way. The absence of periodontal supporting tissue between neighboring implants and the formation of the biological width around the implants usually leads to a flat line of bone and soft tissue. This means that the complete formation of interimplant papilla is hard to predict and usually esthetic compromises have to be made [16]. This makes the absence of the lateral and central incisors the most difficult esthetic situation in implantology [21]. As the soft tissue can be mechanically better supported by a bridge pontic, it is under discussion at present whether in such situations the placement of just one implant and the fabrication of an implant crown with one-sided free- end pontic is esthetically advantageous. Whether long-term problems, such as abutment loosening of the prosthetic or biomechanical overloading of the implant, are to be expected has yet to be finally clarified. In a prospective pilot study from Tymstra et al [17], given this gap situation, in half of cases an implant was placed for restoration with a free- end bridge, and in the other half two implants with individual crowns. After a study duration of one year the results were re-evaluated. No implant losses or problems were identified in either group, the patient satisfaction with regard to esthetics and function was the same in both groups. The authors came to the