Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download
ePaper created 2017-03-17, 11:21:45 | version 1.38.0
use of CBCT and CAD/CAM cone beam supplement | Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Fig. 6 mended. It is important to notify the patient that following augmentation procedures, using bone blocks and biomaterial, it is inadvisable to use a functionally unstable prosthesis as it may damage the augmentation material and damage the prog- nosis connected with the graft's integration. As a result, in such cases one may apply a temporary prosthesis based on telescopic crowns as the whole load will be transferred onto teeth or implants, not the mucosa. Telescopic prostheses are a type of prostheses that are not functionally unstable, unlike ordinary acrylic prostheses or some other skeletal types. Case report A 62-year-old patient with residual dentition used an ordinary acrylic prosthesis. The main reason why the patient wished to change the prosthesis was discomfort due to the fact that the palate was covered up while the prosthesis was movable. In order to obtain maximally precise diagnostics, a de- monstrative panoramic photograph was taken as well as CBCT. During the process of treatment planning, a few proposals for prosthetic solutions were presented, including permanent and temporary restorations, based on existing teeth as well as implants of vari- ous combinations. After analysing CBCT scans (Figs. 3–6) it could be concluded that implantologi- cal treatment may be performed at the front maxilla without any additional procedures, however, due to significant atrophy in the lateral part and a low-lying fundus of the left and right maxillary sinus, it appeared necessary to perform augmen- tation procedures (sinus lift), in order to make im- plantation possible. Fig. 3: Analysis of implantation possibility based on CBCT of the frontal region: vertical dimension 16.1 mm, horizontal dimension 5.4 mm. Fig. 4: Analysis of implantation possibility based on CBCT of the left frontal region: vertical dimension 17.2 mm, horizontal dimension 4.2 mm. Fig. 5: Analysis of implantation possibility based on CBCT of the right-side maxillary sinus region: vertical dimension 5.6 mm, horizontal dimension 10.4 mm. Fig. 6: Analysis of implantation possibility based on CBCT at right-side maxillary sinus region: vertical dimension 4.7 mm, horizontal dimension 6.4 mm. Fig. 7 Fig. 8 Fig. 7: Preparation for taking impressions. Closed tray impression copings mounted onto the implants. Fig. 8: An impression taken on an individual tray—Impregum. Implant analogues together with impression copings placed within the impression. CAD/CAM 1 2017 45