Case Report
Manolis M
Abstract
The use of endosseous implants provides dentistry, the solution in many problems. Someone who workedin early 90’s may remember, the full arch reconstructions in periodontal teeth, the heroic attempts for endodontictreatments, root-end resections (palatal roots of molars, mandibular premolars), root resections/root separationsof molars. Today no uses these approaches, because our patients after spending time, effort, and money, wantsolutions with proven durability, solutions that only endosseous implants can provide. In fixed prosthodontics,natural bone, late loading, good surgery, the failure rate is something like 2%. Friberg et al. conducted a studycomprising of 4641 Branemark dental implants for a period of 3 years and reported a failure rate of 1.5%. Mystatistics in these conditions are 1%. Failure rate in immediate loading rise (9%), also in maxillary overdentures with4 implants freestanding (15%), and when I use implants to salvage removable partial dentures (20%) (my statistics).It is believed that in the field of general dentistry the failure rate is bigger. Also, when we use removable interimrehabilitations, we have to expect high failure rates. I had a patient with a removable interim rehabilitation, and hegave me in the hand the implant after one week, (was inserted with torque 55 N-cm and closed with the gingiva).