RESUMO
Stable posterior occlusal support is crucial for adequate masticatory function and facial aesthetics. In elderly patients over the age of 65, masticatory ability has a significant impact on nutritional intake and overall health. This case report presents a prosthetic treatment of an elderly patient with edentulous maxilla and bilateral posterior edentulous mandible. The upper jaw was restored with a complete denture to establish an ideal occlusal plane, and the three-dimensional positions of the mandibular implants were determined accordingly. The implants were placed through computer-guided implant surgery and were immediately loaded with fixed provisional restorations. The implant-fixed zirconia final restorations were inserted in the lower posterior region, and the occlusal surface of posterior artificial teeth in the upper denture was substituted with cobalt-chrome alloy to resist occlusal wear. The patient’s posterior occlusal support and masticatory function were promptly restored through this treatment process, and long-term stability against wear was also obtained.
RESUMO
PURPOSE@#. This study evaluated the reliability of the chair-side CAD-CAM surgical guide (CSG) in the anterior maxilla by comparing its accuracy with the laboratory 3D-printed surgical guide (3DSG) and manual surgical guide (MSG) concerning different levels of dentists' surgical experience. @*MATERIALS AND METHODS@#. Ten surgical guides of each type (MSG, 3DSG, and CSG) were fabricated on a control study model with missing right and left central incisors. Sixty implants were placed in 30 study models by two dentists (one inexperienced and one experienced) using three different types of surgical guides. Horizontal deviations at shoulder and at apex, vertical, and angular deviations were measured after superimposing the planned and placed implant positions in the software. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare the accuracy of three types of surgical guides in each dentist group and the accuracy of each surgical guide between two dentists (α = .05). @*RESULTS@#. There were no significant differences in any deviations between CSG and 3DSG, apart from angular deviation, for both dentists’ groups. Moreover, both CSG and 3DSG showed no significant differences in accuracy between the two dentists (P > .05). In contrast, MSG demonstrated significant differences from CSG and 3DSG and a significant difference in accuracy between the two dentists (P < .05). @*CONCLUSION@#. CSG provides superior accuracy to MSG in implant placement in the maxillary anterior region and is comparable to 3DSG at different levels of surgical experience, while offering the benefits of shorter manufacturing time and reduced patient visits.