Full-Arch Implant Rehabilitation E-Book

Arun Garg

• Herausgeber: Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc
• Kategorie: Fachliteratur
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 191

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2019

Beschreibung

The full-arch implant rehabilitation (FAIR) protocol is one of the newest implant therapy innovations to treat the edentulous or nearly edentulous patient. The FAIR prosthesis is immediate, fixed, esthetically pleasing, highly functional, inexpensive, and maintainable, and it can frequently be installed without bone grafting. This book describes how the FAIR protocol works, who it should be used for, and methods to implement it successfully for different patients. The system can be used in both arches and in patients with total or near-total edentulism. Several chapters are devoted to describing step-by-step treatment with detailed clinical photographs documenting every step from initial assessment to prosthesis delivery. Even those new to fixed denture systems will find the procedures easy to follow and can begin implementing the FAIR approach for their patients.

Leseprobe

The full-arch implant rehabilitation (FAIR) protocol is one of the newest implant therapy innovations to treat the edentulous or nearly edentulous patient. The FAIR prosthesis is immediate, fi xed, esthetically pleasing, highly functional, inexpensive, and maintainable, and it can frequently be installed without bone grafting. This book describes how the FAIR protocol works, who it should be used for, and methods to implement it successfully for different patients. The system can be used in both arches and in patients with total or near-total edentulism. Several chapters are devoted to describing step-by-step treatment with detailed clinical photographs documenting every stage from initial assessment to prosthesis delivery. Even those new to fi xed denture systems will fi nd the procedures easy to follow and can begin implementing the FAIR approach for their patients.

Full-Arch Implant Rehabilitation

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Garg, Arun K., 1960-author.

Title: Full-arch implant rehabilitation / Arun K. Garg.

Description: Berlin ; Chicago : Quintessence Publishing, [2019] |

Includes bibliographical references.

Identifiers: LCCN 2019022458| ISBN 9780867158090 (paperback) | ISBN 9780867158106 (ebook)

Subjects: | MESH: Dental Implantation--methods | Jaw, Edentulous--surgery | Dental Implants | Dental Arch

Classification: LCC RK667.I45 | NLM WU 640 | DDC 617.6/93--dc23

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019022458

© 2019 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc

Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc

411 N Raddant Road

Batavia, IL 60510

www.quintpub.com

5  4  3  2  1

All rights reserved. This book or any part thereof may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise, without prior written permission of the publisher.

Editor: Marieke Zaffron

Design: Sue Zubek

Production: Kaye Clemens and Christine Cianciosi

Printed in China

Preface

1 Evolution of the FAIR Protocol

The FAIR Difference

2 History of Tilted Implants with an Immediate Prosthesis

Tilted Implants and FAIR

Factors Guiding Successful Outcomes

Tilted Implants and Restoration of the Edentulous Maxilla.

Position and Angulation of Tilted Implants

3 Identifying and Evaluating Candidates

Evaluating the FAIR Patient

Treatment Planning

4 The FAIR Technique and Its Modifications

Surgical Guidelines for Edentulous Arches

FAIR Surgical Guide and Immediate Denture

The FAIR Surgery

Immediate Provisionalization

5 Treating the Fully Edentulous Maxilla

The FAIR Vision

Preoperative Procedure

FAIR Surgical Procedure

6 Treating the Fully Edentulous Mandible

FAIR in the Mandible

Preoperative Procedure

FAIR Surgical Procedure

7 Treating the Partially Edentulous Maxilla

The FAIR Vision

Preoperative Procedure

FAIR Surgical Procedure

8 Treating the Partially Edentulous Mandible

FAIR in the Mandible: Special Considerations for Partial Edentulism

Preoperative Procedure

FAIR Surgical Procedure

9 FAIR Prosthetics

Biomechanical Factors

The Provisional Prosthesis

The Definitive Prosthesis

10 Possible Complications

Complications Unrelated to Prosthesis Fracture

Complications Related to Prosthesis Fracture

The purpose of this book is to explain and illustrate how to treat the edentulous or nearly edentulous patient via a full-arch implant rehabilitation (FAIR) protocol. FAIR is one of the newer innovations in implant therapy to relieve the functional and esthetic misery of a growing worldwide demographic of edentulous patients numbering in the millions.

The FAIR protocol offers full-arch prostheses that are immediate, fixed, loaded, esthetically pleasing, highly functional, inexpensive, maintainable, and very reliable. The protocol’s low-morbidity surgical and provisional restoration techniques are accomplished in a single visit with usually only four or five implants, including posterior tilted implants that take advantage of the patient’s available bone, often eliminating the need for bone grafting.

The book begins with a two-chapter history of the tremendous progress in dental implantology treatment over the last 40 years, due in large part to advances in digital imaging and materials technology for both implants and prostheses. Subsequent chapters describe the specific methods for choosing and treating patients to restore their full-arch function and esthetics.

The text provides a clear, succinct, and authoritative guide to full-arch rehabilitation and as such is ideal for any clinicians incorporating or expanding full-arch restoration modalities into their practice. The case-by-case methodology adds to the uniqueness of the text. A patient-focused approach covers surgical templates and techniques, sterilization, pharmacology, bone biology, complications, and more. Dozens of vivid, digitally mastered artist renderings as well as maxillofacial photography of real patients further enhance the depictions of treatment procedures. Informative tables and charts are also included, many of which depict essential procedural elements for treatment. I hope that the readers also take time to explore the dozens of scholarly resources assembled to support the claims of the text. My further hope is that this text becomes a welcomed companion for any dentists eager to expand their implant knowledge and skills and to advance their careers.

My inspiration for writing stems, as always, from my decades-long service as a full-time professor of surgery in the Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and as director of residency training at the University of Miami Leonard M. Miller School of Medicine. I see FAIR as one of the next logical steps in my career-long focus on bone biology, harvesting, and grafting for dental implant surgery. My humble hope is that this book will have the same global success as several other texts that I’ve written on bone grafting and dental implantology to benefit dental clinicians and patients around the world.

Acknowledgments

For their invaluable assistance and work on the patient cases described in this book, I would like to offer special thanks to Renato Rossi, Jr, DMD, MSc, PhD; Maria Del Pilar Rios, DDS, MScD, PhD; and Rosa Ysabel Rios, implant prosthetic specialist.

The full-arch implant rehabilitation (FAIR) protocol is one of the newest innovations in implant therapy to treat the edentulous or nearly edentu-lous patient. Instead of single implants replacing individual missing teeth, four or five implants are spaced throughout the arch and immediately loaded with a provisional fixed prosthesis. While conventional removable dentures and bone grafting with multiple implants are other options, the latter can take several years and has commensurate high costs. Morever, a number of studies have shown that wearing conventional removable dentures can reduce patients’ quality of life, causing pain and areas of discomfort, chewing and speaking difficulties, slippage, reduced occlusal force, and poor oral sensation.

The FAIR dental prosthesis offers many advantages for the dental patient with a fully or partially edentulous arch (Table 1-1). The prosthesis is immediate, fixed, esthetically pleasing, highly functional, inexpensive, and maintainable. Importantly, the FAIR procedure and similar techniques can frequently be performed without bone grafting with exceptional success rates.1–14 Such dental systems are better designed to meet the surgical and restorative needs of more patients with edentulous or partially edentulous arches, because traditional techniques often require extensive bone grafting. The invasiveness of these procedures deters many patients, and others (particularly elderly patients and those with severe bone loss) may not be good candidates for bone grafting.

TABLE 1-1 Advantages and disadvantages of removable dentures, overdentures, and the FAIR approach

ADVANTAGESDISADVANTAGESRemovable dentures

▪ Relatively inexpensive tooth and gingival replacement

▪ Provides lip support

▪ Easy to remove and clean outside of the mouth

▪ Uncomfortable

▪ May cause sore spots on gingival tissue

▪ Makes it difficult to eat certain foods

▪ Causes accelerated bone loss

▪ Often requires relining to improve comfort as bone deteriorates

▪ May make speech difficult

▪ May require creams or adhesives to reduce mobility

▪ Approximately 10% functionality compared with natural teeth

Removable overdenture supported by 2 or 4 implants

▪ Improves stability and functionality to 60% compared with natural teeth

▪ Relatively inexpensive tooth and gingival replacement

▪ Provides lip support

▪ Easy to clean outside of the mouth

▪Uncomfortable

▪ May cause sore spots on gingival tissue

▪ Denture must be removed and cleaned outside of the mouth

▪ May still move when chewing or speaking

▪ May require relining to improve fit and comfort as bone deteriorates

FAIR approach

▪ Improves functionality to 70% compared with natural teeth

▪ Eliminates the need for bone grafting

▪ A provisional partial denture can be provided on the day of surgery, allowing a soft food diet during healing

▪ Replaces roots and teeth

▪ Preserves bone and soft tissue

▪ No decay; 95% success rate over 30 years

▪ Natural-looking esthetics

▪ Allows patients to eat any kinds of foods

▪ Can be cleaned like natural teeth

▪ Requires healing and restorative time

▪ Involves surgical procedure and anesthesia

During the late 1980s and early 1990s, the success rates for immediately loaded implants improved, both for the restoration of individual teeth and the placement of short-span fixed partial dentures.15–20 These developments served to push the envelope toward full-arch replacement, both with and eventually without bone grafting. The mid to late 1990s saw the development of mandibular restoration protocols that attempted to meet the challenges of anatomical placement and a redesigned partial denture architecture in the dense bone of the mandible.21,22 Similar attempts in the softer, more porous maxillary bone were generally unsuccessful because of poor anchorage.23–28 To overcome this challenge, the threading, size, and length of implants were redesigned to condense and thicken bone during placement in soft bone and with sinus elevation and other procedures.29–32

The early 2000s saw significant improvement in the esthetics of fixed prosthodontics, particularly with the introduction of pink ceramic for the gingiva. Retrospective studies of fixed full-arch prostheses in the mandible and zygomatic implants in the maxilla showed how protocols for full-arch dental prostheses had evolved.33–37 For example, when traditional implant surgery and bone grafting for sinus elevation and other procedures are contraindicated in the maxilla due to patient age or other issues with bone density or availability, the longer, nontraditional zygomatic implants can be placed near the dense, more cortical cheek bone (ie, zygoma) in the posterior maxilla (Fig 1-1). This decreases the time needed for the procedure and increases patient comfort.38,39 By about 2010, additional advancements in implant design and protocols included techniques for extramaxillary anchorage, optimal implant angulation, optional use of cantilevers, and bone reduction (when required).40–45

Fig 1-1 Placing zygomatic implants near the dense, more cortical cheekbone in the posterior maxilla is an example of an early evolution in protocol for full-arch dental prostheses.

An earlier treatment option for edentulous patients that reflects the evolution of dental implant technology is the two- or four-implant removable overdenture.46–48 Unlike conventional removable dentures (Fig 1-2), the fixed removable overdenture improves stability and function to approximately 60% that of natural teeth (Fig 1-3) and yet is still relatively inexpensive as a replacement for teeth and gingiva. Additionally, it provides lip support and easy cleaning outside the mouth. Disadvantages include sore spots on the gingiva, some movement when the patient chews and speaks, and the possible need for frequent relining for fit and comfort because of continued bone resorption.

Fig 1-2 The conventional denture was a first step in the evolution toward the FAIR protocol.

Fig 1-3 The fixed removable overdenture improves stability and function to approximately 60% that of natural teeth.

The FAIR Difference

In contrast, the FAIR prosthesis and other similar protocols have only two requirements that could be considered disadvantages: a surgical procedure and a short period afterward for healing and restoration. For these relatively minor disadvantages, the FAIR protocol (Fig 1-4) provides 70% of the functionality of natural teeth, requires minimal or no grafting before placement, and serves as a replacement for bone and teeth (preserving both bone and soft tissue). A provisional prosthesis is delivered on the day of surgery, allowing the consumption of soft foods during healing. The definitive prosthesis has a 95% success rate over 30 years with a relatively natural esthetic that also permits virtually no food restrictions.

Fig 1-4 The FAIR protocol provides approximately 70% of natural dentition functionality.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as of 2015, the life expectancy of the average American was almost 79 years. As a result, more patients are seeking a solution to the problem of missing teeth that is not only esthetically pleasing but also cost-effective and highly functional. Doing nothing for the edentulous patient is no longer an option because edentulism negatively impacts overall oral health as well as patient longevity.49,50 Thankfully, there is a relatively simple solution for edentulism that is far superior to traditional dentures and overdentures because an immediately loaded implant-supported full-arch prosthesis is nearly equivalent to natural teeth.51,52

With 70% masticatory function and esthetics, accompanied by very low failure rates, FAIR prostheses have almost the same occlusal force as that of natural dentition.53,54 Traditional implants are placed in the vertical position, like fence posts (Fig 1-5a), but the FAIR technique employs a distally tilted or angled implant for greater stability, like a beach umbrella angled in the sand (Fig 1-5b). Tilted implants preserve important anatomical structures, allowing for longer implants and good cortical bone anchorage (Fig 1-6). Additionally, tilted implants increase spacing between implants, reduce cantilever length, and reduce the need for bone augmentation.32,55–58

Fig 1-5(a) Implants are traditionally placed axially. (b) When using the FAIR technique, the implants are tilted. Note that this also allows for more space in the arch between implants.

Fig 1-6 Tilting of implants allows the preservation of important anatomical structures: the maxillary sinus in the maxilla (a) and the inferior alveolar nerve in the posterior mandible (b).

The FAIR surgical and provisional restoration techniques are accomplished in a single visit and usually use four or five implants: several axial implants placed anteriorly and two tilted implants placed posteriorly. All implants are later restored with straight and angled multiunit abutments to support a provisional, fixed, immediately loaded, full-arch prosthesis with survival rates between 92% and 100%.59–64

References

1. Misch CE, Degidi M. Five-year prospective study of immediate/ early loading of fixed prostheses in completely edentulous jaws with a bone quality-based implant system. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2003;5:17–28.

2. Motta M, Monsano R, Velloso GR, et al. Guided surgery in esthetic region. J Craniofac Surg 2016;27:e262–e265.

3. Uhlendorf Y, Sartori IA, Melo AC, Uhlendorf J. Changes in lip profile of edentulous patients after placement of maxillary implant-supported fixed prosthesis: Is a wax try-in a reliable diagnostic tool? Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017;32:593–597.

4. Barbosa GA, Bernardes SR, de França DG, das Neves FD, de Mattos Mda G, Ribeiro RF. Stress over implants of one-piece cast frameworks made with different materials. J Craniofac Surg 2016;27:238–241.

5. Zoidis P. The All-on-4 modified polyetheretherketone treatment approach: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2018;119:516–521.

6. Malo P, Rangert B, Dvarsater L. Immediate function of Branemark implants in the esthetic zone: A retrospective clinical study with 6 months to 4 years of follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2000;2:138–146.

7. Malo P, Rangert B, Nobre M. “All-on-Four” immediate-function concept with Branemark System implants for completely edentulous mandibles: A retrospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2003;5(suppl 1):2–9.

8. Malo P, Friberg B, Polizzi G, Gualini F, Vighagen T, Rangert B. Immediate and early function of Branemark System implants placed in the esthetic zone: A 1-year prospective clinical multicenter study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2003;5(suppl 1):37–46.

9. Malo P, de Araujo Nobre M, Lopes A, Moss SM, Molina GJ. A longitudinal study of the survival of All-on-4 implants in the mandible with up to 10 years of follow-up. J Am Dent Assoc 2011;142:310–320.

10. Malo P, de Araujo Nobre M, Lopes A, Francischone C, Rigolizzo M. “All-on-4” immediate-function concept for completely edentulous maxillae: A clinical report on the medium (3 years) and long-term (5 years) outcomes. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14(suppl 1):e139–e150.

11. Lopes A, Malo P, de Araujo Nobre M, Sanchez-Fernandez E. The NobelGuide All-on-4 treatment concept for rehabilitation of edentulous jaws: A prospective report on medium- and long-term outcomes. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015;17(suppl 2):e406– e416.

12. Malo P, de Araujo Nobre MA, Lopes AV, Rodrigues R. Immediate loading short implants inserted on low bone quantity for the rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla using an All-on-4 design. J Oral Rehabil 2015;42:615–623.

13. Malo P, Araujo Nobre MD, Lopes A, Rodrigues R. Double full-arch versus single full-arch, four implant-supported rehabilitations: A retrospective, 5-year cohort study. J Prosthodont 2015;24:263–270.

14. Malo P, de Araujo Nobre M, Lopes A, Ferro A, Gravito I. All-on-4 treatment concept for the rehabilitation of the completely edentulous mandible: A 7-year clinical and 5-year radiographic retrospective case series with risk assessment for implant failure and marginal bone level. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015;17(suppl 2):e531–e541.

15. Buser DA, Schroeder A, Sutter F, Lang NP. The new concept of ITI hollow-cylinder and hollow-screw implants: Part 2. Clinical aspects, indications, and early clinical results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1988;3:173–181.

16. Piattelli A, Ruggeri A, Franchi M, Romasco N, Trisi P. An histologic and histomorphometric study of bone reactions to unloaded and loaded non-submerged single implants in monkeys: A pilot study. J Oral Implantol 1993;19:314–320.

17. Henry P, Rosenberg I. Single-stage surgery for rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible: Preliminary results. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 1994;6:15–22.

18. Spiekermann H, Jansen VK, Richter EJ. A 10-year follow-up study of IMZ and TPS implants in the edentulous mandible using bar-retained overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995;10:231–243.

19. Salama H, Rose LF, Salama M, Betts NJ. Immediate loading of bilaterally splinted titanium root-form implants in fixed prosthodontics—A technique reexamined: Two case reports. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1995;15:344–361.

20. Biglani M, Lozada JL. Immediately loaded dental implants—Influence of early functional contacts on implant stability, bone level integrity and soft tissue quality: A retrospective 3 and 6 year analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:126–127.

21. Balshi TJ, Wolfinger GJ. Immediate loading of Brånemark implants in edentulous mandibles: A preliminary report. Implant Dent 1997;6:83–88.

22. Jemt T, Lekholm U. Implant treatment in edentulous maxillae: A 5-year follow-up report on patients with different degrees of jaw resorption. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995;10:303–311.

23. LoCascio SJ, Salinas TJ. Rehabilitation of an edentulous mandible with an implant-supported prosthesis. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 1997;9:357–368.

24. Scortecci G. Immediate function of cortically anchored disk-design implants without bone augmentation in moderately to severely resorbed completely edentulous maxillae. J Oral Implantol 1999;25:70–79.

25. Mattsson T, Köndell PA, Gynther GW, Fredholm U, Bolin A. Implant treatment without bone grafting in severely resorbed edentulous maxillae. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999;57:281–287.

26. Bohsali K, Simon H, Kan JY, Redd M. Modular transitional implants to support the interim maxillary overdenture. Compend Contin Educ Dent 1999;20:975–983.

27. Ivanoff CJ, Gröndahl K, Bergström C, Lekholm U, Brånemark PI. Influence of bicortical or monocortical anchorage on maxillary implant stability: A 15-year retrospective study of Brånemark System implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:103–110.

28. Wennstrom J, Zurdo J, Karlsson S, Ekestubbe A, Grondahl K, Lindhe J. Bone level change at implant-supported fixed partial dentures with and without cantilever extensions after 5 years in function. J Clin Periodontol 2004;31:1077–1083.

29. Cannizzaro G, Felice P, Leone M, Viola P, Esposito M. Early loading of implants in the atrophic posterior maxilla: Lateral sinus lift with autogenous bone and Bio-Oss versus crestal mini sinus lift and 8-mm hydroxyapatite-coated implants. A randomized controlled clinical trial. Eur J Oral Implantol 2009;2:25–38.

30. Balevi B. Implant-supported cantilevered fixed partial dentures. Evid Based Dent 2010;11:48–49.

31. Maló P, Nobre Md, Lopes A. Immediate loading of ‘All-on-4’ maxillary prostheses using trans-sinus tilted implants without sinus bone grafting: A retrospective study reporting the 3-year outcome. Eur J Oral Implantol 2013;6:273–283.

32. Rocci A, Martignoni M, Gottlow J. Immediate loading in the maxilla using flapless surgery, implants placed in predetermined positions, and prefabricated provisional restorations: A retrospective 3-year clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2003;5(suppl 1):29–36.

33. Kinsel RP, Liss M. Retrospective analysis of 56 edentulous dental arches restored with 344 single-stage implants using an immediate loading fixed provisional protocol: Statistical predictors of implant failure. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007;22:823–830.

34. Eliasson A, Blomqvist F, Wennerberg A, Johansson A. A retrospective analysis of early and delayed loading of full-arch mandibular prostheses using three different implant systems: Clinical results with up to 5 years of loading. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2009;11:134–148.

35. Fortin Y. Placement of zygomatic implants into the malar prominence of the maxillary bone for apical fixation: A clinical report of 5 to 13 years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017;32:633–641.

36. Fortin Y, Sullivan RM. Terminal posterior tilted implants planned as a sinus graft alternative for fixed full-arch implant-supported maxillary restoration: A case series with 10- to 19-year results on 44 consecutive patients presenting for routine maintenance. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2017;19:56–68.

37. Pi Urgell J, Revilla Gutiérrez V, Gay Escoda CG. Rehabilitation of atrophic maxilla: A review of 101 zygomatic implants. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2008;13:e363–e370.

38. Chow J, Wat P, Hui E, Lee P, Li W. A new method to eliminate the risk of maxillary sinusitis with zygomatic implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25:1233–1240.

39. Atalay B, Doganay Ö, Saraçoglu BK, Bultan Ö, Hafiz G. Clinical evaluation of zygomatic implant-supported fixed and removable prosthesis. J Craniofac Surg 2017;28:185–189.

40. Lifshitz AB, Muñoz M. Evaluation of the stability of self-drilling mini-implants for maxillary anchorage under immediate loading. World J Orthod 2010;11:352–356.

41. Harirforoush R, Arzanpour S, Chehroudi B. The effects of implant angulation on the resonance frequency of a dental implant. Med Eng Phys 2014;36:1024–1032.

42. Alencar SM, Nogueira LB, Leal de Moura W, et al. FEA of peri-implant stresses in fixed partial denture prostheses with cantilevers. J Prosthodont 2017;26:150–155.

43. Sheridan RA, Decker AM, Plonka AB, Wang HL. The role of occlusion in implant therapy: A comprehensive updated review. Implant Dent 2016;25:829–838.

44. Romanos GE, Gupta B, Gaertner K, Nentwig GH. Distal cantilever in full-arch prostheses and immediate loading: A retrospective clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29:427–431.

45. Tischler M, Ganz SD, Patch C. An ideal full-arch tooth replacement option: CAD/CAM zirconia screw-retained implant bridge. Dent Today 2013;32(5):98–102.

46. Galindo DF. The implant-supported milled-bar mandibular overdenture. J Prosthodont 2001;10:46–51.

47. Chee WW. Treatment planning: Implant-supported partial overdentures. J Calif Dent Assoc 2005;33:313–316.

48. Shetty PP, Gangaiah M, Chowdhary R. Hidden overdenture bar in fixed implant-retained hybrid prosthesis: Report of a novel technique. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17:780–782.

49. Emami E, de Souza RF, Kabawat M, Feine JS. The impact of edentulism on oral and general health. Int J Dent 2013;2013:498–305.

50. Gil-Montoya JA, de Mello AL, Barrios R, Gonzalez-Moles MA, Bravo M. Oral health in the elderly patient and its impact on general well-being: A nonsystematic review. Clin Interv Aging 2015;10:461– 467.

51. Dellavia C, Rosati R, Del Fabbro M, Pellegrini G. Functional jaw muscle assessment in patients with a full fixed prosthesis on a limited number of implants: A review of the literature. Eur J Oral Implantol 2014;7(suppl 2):S155–S169.

52. Rosenbaum N. Full-arch implant-retained prosthetics in general dental practice. Dent Update 2012;39:108–116.

53. Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Chuang SK, Weber HP. Implant loading protocols for edentulous patients with fixed prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29(suppl):256–270.

54. Balshi TJ, Wolfinger GJ, Slauch RW, Balshi SF. A retrospective analysis of 800 Brånemark System implants following the All-on-Four protocol. J Prosthodont 2014;23:83–88.

55. Malhotra AO, Padmanabhan TV, Mohamed K, Natarajan S, Elavia U. Load transfer in tilted implants with varying cantilever lengths in an All-on-Four situation. Aust Dent J 2012;57:440–445.

56. Krennmair G, Seemann R, Weinländer M, Krennmair S, Piehslinger E. Clinical outcome and peri-implant findings of four-implant-supported distal cantilevered fixed mandibular prostheses: Five-year results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:831–840.

57. Drago C. Frequency and type of prosthetic complications associated with interim, immediately loaded full-arch prostheses: A 2-year retrospective chart review. J Prosthodont 2016;25:433–439.

58. Spinelli D, Ottria L, DE Vico G, Bollero R, Barlattani A, Bollero P. Full rehabilitation with Nobel Clinician and Procera Implant Bridge: Case report. Oral Implantol (Rome) 2013;6:25–36.

59.