Evaluation of the occlusal scheme of posterior implant-supported single crowns for patients treated by university students in Riyadh: case series

Abdulaziz Abdullah Alabood

doi:10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20252493

Authors

Abdulaziz Abdullah Alabood Department of Dentistry, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20252493

Keywords:

Implant crowns, Occlusal scheme, University students, Riyadh

Abstract

Dental implant-supported crowns have become the standard of care for replacing missing teeth due to their predictable outcomes and high success rates. As a result, they become a routine treatment in dental practice, necessitating a thorough understanding of implant restoration principles and maintenance. However, long-term implant survival is significantly influenced by the forces exerted on the implant restoration. Excessive occlusal forces beyond the physiological limits of the bone can lead to crestal bone loss, peri-implantitis, and increased pocket depth. The objectives of this study is to assess the occlusion contact, cuspal inclination, table width of posterior implant-supported single crowns, and its impact on bone loss around the implant among patients treated by King Saud University fifth year undergraduate students between 2020 and 2022 at the Dental University Hospital Clinics, King Saud University. Analysis of the examined (n=8 patients), indicates the majority of implant crowns did not adhere to the recommended standards for prosthetic single implant-supported crown design, specifically regarding table width, cuspal inclination, and occlusal contact. Notably, no clear evidence of bone loss was observed in the examined patients. A significant number of implant crown placed by dental students in this study exhibit deviation from recommended prosthetic design. This highlight a potential area for improvement in students training and clinical practice related to single-implant restoration. However, no definitive bone loss was observed around implant during the short-term period. Therefore, further studies are needed to re-evaluate these findings over the long term for confirmation.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

harali K, Das M, Nongthombam R, Kumar A, Nastaran Q, Syeda S. Occlusal considerations in implant dentistry. Int J Med Biomed Stud. 2020;4(7):173-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32553/ijmbs.v4i7.1327

Kim Y, Oh TJ, Misch CE, Wang HL. Occlusal considerations in implant therapy: clinical guidelines with biomechanical rationale. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005;16(1):26-35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01067.x

Rilo B, da Silva JL, Mora MJ, Santana U. Guidelines for occlusion strategy in implant-borne prostheses. A review. Int Dent J. 2008;58(3):139-45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1875-595X.2008.tb00189.x

Chen Y, Kuan C, Wang Y. Implant occlusion: biomechanical considerations for implant-supported prostheses. J Dent Sci. 2008;3:65-74.

Stilwell C. Occlusal considerations in maintaining health of implants and their restorations. Br Dent J. 2024;236(10)773-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-024-7407-7

Bonde MJ, Stokholm R, Schou S, Isidor F. Patient satisfaction and aesthetic outcome of implant-supported single-tooth replacements performed by dental students: a retrospective evaluation 8 to 12 years after treatment. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2013;6(4):387-95.

Bonde MJ, Stokholm R, Isidor F, Schou S. Outcome of implant-supported single-tooth replacements performed by dental students. A 10-year clinical and radiographic retrospective study. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2010;3(1):37-46.

Ghariani L, Segaan L, Rayyan MM, Galli S, Jimbo R, Ibrahim A. Does crown/implant ratio influence the survival and marginal bone level of short single implants in the mandibular molar? A preliminary investigation consisting of 12 patients. J Oral Rehabil. 2016;43(2):127-35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.12342

Hjalmarsson L, Gheisarifar M, Jemt T. A systematic review of survival of single implants as presented in longitudinal studies with a follow-up of at least 10 years. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2016;9(1):S15.

Sadid-Zadeh R, Kutkut A, Kim H. Prosthetic failure in implant dentistry. Dent Clin North Am. 2015;59(1):195-214. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2014.08.008