logo 18 • CAMLOG Partner Magazine • July 2018 14 Minimally invasive exposure In the present case, the implants were exposed after 14 weeks. In addition to the manual and visual control, a control X-ray was taken to check healing of the implants. At this time, the cover cap of the implant region 26 was partially exposed due to soft tissue resorption (Figs. 12 and 13). The exposure was performed minimally invasive without flap technique. Access to the cover caps was created with a puncture incision. These were removed and 2.5 mm high gingiva formers were used to form the peri-implant soft tissue (Figs. 14 and 15). The impression was taken only one week after exposure and healing of the mucosa. The impression posts for the open tray technique were used for this purpose. In cases where several implants are placed side by side for planned prosthetic splints, our Berlin concept always involves connecting the impression posts. Splinting with Pattern resin (GC) avoids possible transfer errors during impression taking (Figs. 16 and 17). A conventional impression procedure with an individual tray is then selected for the subsequent workflow. This procedure ensures a high-precision implant transfer to the dental laboratory. Although this high-precision impression technique is complex to perform, it guarantees reliable, result-oriented further processing in the laboratory with the required quality for the CAD/CAM processing techniques (Figs. 18 and 19). Prosthetic reconstruction − splinted and screw-retained During cast fabrication in the laboratory, the emphasis is placed fully on the exact transfer of the implant positions and the surrounding soft tissue. After screwretaining the lab analogs, the material for the removable gingival mask was injected and after curing, the impression was filled with plaster. (Fig. 20). Using a face bow and a bite registration, the maxillary master cast and the Fig. 16: Posts for the open tray technique were selected for impression taking. Fig. 17: For safe transfer of the implants, the impression posts were blocked intraorally with plastic. Fig. 18: The long screws of the impression posts allow easy intraoral loosening. Fig. 11: The postoperative X-ray image shows the excellent positioning of the two CERALOG® Implants in regions 26 and 27. Fig. 12: At the time of exposure, the implant was exposed in region 26. Fig. 10: The implants were covered with the cover cap, which is part of the implant pack. CASE STUDY
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE0MzMw