Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Volume 67, Issue 11, Supplement , Pages 82-88, November 2009

Prosthetic Considerations for Orthodontic Implant Site Development in the Adult Patient

  • Alexandra I. Holst, DMD

      Affiliations

    • Associate Professor, University Clinic Erlangen, Dental Clinic 3, Department of Prosthodontics, Erlangen, Germany
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence and reprint requests to Dr Holst: Glueckstrasse, 91054 Erlangen, Germany
    • ,
  • Emeka Nkenke, MD, DDS, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Associate Professor, University Clinic Erlangen, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Erlangen, Germany
    • ,
  • Markus B. Blatz, DMD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Professor of Restorative Dentistry, Chairman, Department of Preventive and Restorative Sciences, Robert Schattner Center, University of Pennsylvania, School of Dental Medicine, Philadelphia, PA
    • ,
  • Hans Geiselhöringer, CDT, MDT

      Affiliations

    • Dental X Hans Geiselhöringer GmbH & Co, Munich, Germany
    • ,
  • Stefan Holst, DMD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Associate Professor, University Clinic Erlangen, Dental Clinic 2, Department of Prosthodontics, Erlangen, Germany

Proper site development is a key factor for long-term clinical success of dental implants. Whereas surgical and restorative techniques have been refined to ensure predictable functional and esthetic outcome, individual clinical prerequisites do not always allow proper placement of implants when prosthetic and material properties are considered. Orthodontic tooth movement may be a viable and nonsurgical site development treatment option. With the introduction and advancements of minimal invasive and less visible orthodontic appliances, a growing number of adult patients are willing to obtain orthodontic treatment. The spectrum of modern appliances is broad and ranges from clear aligners to lingual brackets. Skeletal anchorage devices such as orthodontic mini-implants often eliminate unpopular external anchorage devices (ie, headgear) in adult patients, This article discusses the selection of an appropriate pretreatment approach by taking patient-specific criteria into account.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Drs Alexandra I. Holst and Emeka Nkenke state no financial arrangement or affiliation with a corporate organization or a manufacturer of a product discussed in this article. Dr Stefan Holst has received honoraria from Nobel Biocare. Dr Markus B. Blatz has received research contracts and/or grants from Nobel Biocare, Ekton/Straumann, Heraeus Kulzer, 3M ESPE, Noritake, Kuraray, Coltene Whaledent, and Ivoclar Vivadent. Dr Hans Geiselhöringer has received governance and paid consultantship from Nobel Biocare.

PII: S0278-2391(09)01402-5

doi:10.1016/j.joms.2009.07.010

Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Volume 67, Issue 11, Supplement , Pages 82-88, November 2009

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution