Abstract
ABSTRACT This study aimed to report treatment of a patient with Kennedy’s class l maxillary and class II mandibular arch with removable partial dentures supported on an external hexagon (HE) anterior type implant of regular diameter fitted with an O’ring type of attachment. This clinical case reports the oral rehabilitation of a senile patient whose clinical examination revealed missing dentition in the upper and lower arches, attrition of the lower anterior teeth, caries, and motor impairment affecting hygiene, mastication, and esthetic functions. Due to few severely impaired teeth, the pre-prosthetic preparation included extractions and restorations, followed by the fabrication of upper and lower removable partial dentures supported by an HE-type implant. This study is important because it addresses the current challenges faced in the implementation of treatment involving removable partial dentures combined with implants, which is a topic that still needs long-term follow-up and research.
Highlights
The advent of preventive dentistry has reduced the incidence of tooth loss, the number of individuals using some kind of prosthesis is still large
Various prosthetic treatment options are available for partial edentulism, including fixed partial prostheses (FPP), implants, or removable partial dentures (RPDs)
We can conclude from the presented clinical case that: - the upper implant-retained and supported RPD
Summary
The advent of preventive dentistry has reduced the incidence of tooth loss, the number of individuals using some kind of prosthesis is still large. Implant- and tooth-supported removable partial dentures: a case report. Various prosthetic treatment options are available for partial edentulism, including fixed partial prostheses (FPP), implants, or removable partial dentures (RPDs). From a clinical point of view, single or multiple RPDs do not just restore lost teeth, and have certain advantages over other rehabilitative resources within the social and professional context. These include (1) cost benefit; (2) minimal wear of tooth structure; (3) easier maintenance as compared to other types of prostheses; (4) mechanically efficient solution in complicated situations; (5) lesser implementation time as compared to other types of prostheses; and (6) versatility [2]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
