The number of cases where natural teeth and dental implants coexist has been increasing. In some cases following implant treatment, it becomes necessary to extract the remaining teeth and carry out additional implant procedures. However, there are no established guidelines for assessing implants previously placed by other clinics. This case report introduces criteria for evaluating such implants and explores the long-term outcomes of subsequent implant procedures.
In 2002, a patient underwent implant treatment involving a removable denture at a different clinic. However, desiring a fixed prosthetic device, the patient visited our department. A new prosthetic solution was required, especially near the existing implants at positions #15 and #25. On the upper right side, an implant at #16 was inserted ; it was linked to the existing implant at #15 with the construction of a distal cantilever prosthesis. Similarly, on the upper left side, implants at #23 and #24 were placed and connected to the implant at #25.
We suggest the following criteria for integrating the evaluation of implants placed by other clinics into the treatment plan : 1) evaluation of the implant body, 2) condition of peri-implant tissue, 3) oral hygiene status, 4) material considerations, 5) implant placement site, 6) assessment of surgical risks, 7) evaluation of esthetic risks, and 8) patient explanation.
Despite meticulous treatment planning, the patient eventually required an additional implant (#21) post-treatment. This development led to no further complications, and long-term follow-up affirmed the efficacy of the treatment approach.
View full abstract