ABSTRACT
In clinical practice, due to various factors, we are facing patients with few teeth left in the lower jaw, often without any perspective. As a result of the reduced load capacity, they are loosened and can be completely lost. On the other hand, prosthodontics has a great potential for a unique implant - prosthetic rehabilitation. The goal is to preserve the alveolar ridge and slow down its resorption. With the advancement of the technology, conventional dentures are being replaced with more sophisticated therapeutic methods, such as modern prosthodontic superstructures. One of the latest solutions for this problem is the application of the Brånemark system (Nobel Biocare). These restorations that are applied represent a multi-unit system of implants and one hybrid prosthesis. This represents a mobile prosthetic suprastructure, which can be fixed with specific attachments on 4 implants. This combination of placement of a hybrid prosthetic structure on 4 implants is known as „all on four“. There are many discussions and writings about this multidisciplinary concept in the professional world. Over these 4 implants, a suprastructure with maximum 12 teeth can be immediately placed. The prosthetic construction circularly covers the entire toothless mandibular ridge. The data obtained from the patients show difference in the development of the bite force in the mastication center. The results have also shown a better quality of life in patients using a hybrid denture compared to the conventional prosthetic rehabilitation
REFERENCES
Branschofsky, M., Beikler, T., & Schafer, R. (2011). Secondary Trauma from Occlusion and Periodontitis. Quintessence International, 42(6), 515-522
Branemark, P. I. (1983). Osseointegration and Its Experimental Background. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 50, 390-435.
Chen, Y. Y., Kuan, C. L., & Wang, Y. B. (2008). Biomechanical Consideration Implant Supported Prosthesis. Journal of Dental Sciences, 3, 65-74
Christopher, C. K. (2012). Implant Rehabilitation in the Edentulous Jaws: The All-on-4 Concept Immediate Function. Australia Dental Practice, 139-148
Duyck, J., Van Oosterwyck, H., & Vander Sloten, J. (2000). Magnitude and Distribution of Occlusal Forces on Oral Implants Supporting Fixed Prostheses: An In-vivo Study. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 11(5), 465-475
Gross, M. D. (2008). Occlusion in Implant Dentistry: A Review of the Literature of Prosthetic Determinants and Current Concepts. Australian Dental Journal, 53(Suppl 1), S60-68
Hassel, A. J., Rolko, C., Koke, U., Leisen, J., & Rammelsberg, P. (2008). German Version of the GOHAI. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, 36(1), 34-42
Petrovik Kovacheva, G., & Grchev, A. (2010). Mozhnosti za fiksiranje na suprastukturite pri implantno protetichka rehabilitacija kaj totalna bezabost. MSP, 341(2), 56-65.
Rizwan, S., Laksha, C., Susmita, B., & Jimit, S. (2016). Role of Trauma from Occlusion in Periodontal Disease - A Controversy. Journal of Dental and Medical Science, 15(9), 118-122
Shinogaya, T., & Sodeyama, A. (1999). Bite Force and Occlusal Load Distribution in Normal Complete Dentitions of Young Adults. European Journal of Dental Rehabilitation, 7(2), 65- 70
Sivakumar, I., Sajjan, S., Ramaraju, A. V., & Rao, B. (2015). Changes in the Oral Health-related Quality of Life in Elderly Edentulous Patients after Complete Denture Therapy and Possible Role of Their Initial Expectation. Journal of Prosthodontics, 24(6), 452-456.
Zenthofer, A., & Rammelsberg, P. (2014). Determination of Oral Health-related Quality of Life of the Institutionalized Elderly. Psychogeriatrics, 14(4), 247-254