PMC4265518_01
Extensive exposure of molar furcation.
CRIM2014-307364.001.jpg
PMC4265518_01_CRIM2014-307364.001.jpg
fig1
X-rays showed granulomas with vertical bone reabsorption, rhizolysis, and extensive exposure of molar furcation (Figure 1).
Extensive apical osseous reabsorption.
CRIM2014-307364.002.jpg
PMC4265518_01_CRIM2014-307364.002.jpg
fig2
In the mandible, an extensive apical osseous reabsorption caused by endodontic cone beyond the apex was present at level 3.5 (Figures 2(a) and 2(b)).
Lateral cross bite, blocking behavior, and fracture of the prosthetic crown of 3.4 and signs of suffering with gum recession in the distal teeth.
CRIM2014-307364.003.jpg
PMC4265518_01_CRIM2014-307364.003.jpg
fig3
Fracture of the prosthetic crown of 3.4 and gum recession in the distal teeth (Figures 3(a) and 3(b)) were present also.
Postextractive implant site.
CRIM2014-307364.004.jpg
PMC4265518_01_CRIM2014-307364.004.jpg
fig4
MPI 4.2 x 11.5 in 3.6 and MPI 5 x 16 in 3.5 site.
CRIM2014-307364.005.jpg
PMC4265518_01_CRIM2014-307364.005.jpg
fig5
MPI (Ditron Dental, Israel) were placed in different sites: 4.2 x 16 in 3.4, 5 x 16 in 3.5, and 4.2 x 11.5 in 3.6 (Figures 5(a), 5(b), and 6).
Implants placed in premolars and molar site.
CRIM2014-307364.007.jpg
PMC4265518_01_CRIM2014-307364.007.jpg
fig7
The X-ray showed an optimum crestal and mesial distal position of the implants, as well as their excellent position to the surrounding bone (Figures 7-11).
Implants with abutment.
CRIM2014-307364.008.jpg
PMC4265518_01_CRIM2014-307364.008.jpg
fig8
The X-ray showed an optimum crestal and mesial distal position of the implants, as well as their excellent position to the surrounding bone (Figures 7-11).
Provisional prosthesis.
CRIM2014-307364.009.jpg
PMC4265518_01_CRIM2014-307364.009.jpg
fig9
The X-ray showed an optimum crestal and mesial distal position of the implants, as well as their excellent position to the surrounding bone (Figures 7-11).
X-ray showing an optimum crestal and mesial distal position of the implants.
CRIM2014-307364.010.jpg
PMC4265518_01_CRIM2014-307364.010.jpg
fig10
The X-ray showed an optimum crestal and mesial distal position of the implants, as well as their excellent position to the surrounding bone (Figures 7-11).
Provisional prosthesis.
CRIM2014-307364.011.jpg
PMC4265518_01_CRIM2014-307364.011.jpg
fig11
The X-ray showed an optimum crestal and mesial distal position of the implants, as well as their excellent position to the surrounding bone (Figures 7-11).
Removal of preexisting prosthesis.
CRIM2014-307364.012.jpg
PMC4265518_01_CRIM2014-307364.012.jpg
fig12
The fixed prosthesis was removed (Figure 12(a)) and the two molars were extracted with mini-invasive technique (Figures 12(b), 13(a), and 13(b)).
The two molars were extracted and implants positioned.
CRIM2014-307364.013.jpg
PMC4265518_01_CRIM2014-307364.013.jpg
fig13
The fixed prosthesis was removed (Figure 12(a)) and the two molars were extracted with mini-invasive technique (Figures 12(b), 13(a), and 13(b)).
Implants inserted in 2.5, 2.6, and 2.7 sites.
CRIM2014-307364.014.jpg
PMC4265518_01_CRIM2014-307364.014.jpg
fig14
The primary stability was excellent and the implants were immediately loaded using provisional Pek abutments (Figures 14, 15(a), 15(b), and 16).
Gingival sutures and provisional prosthesis.
CRIM2014-307364.015.jpg
PMC4265518_01_CRIM2014-307364.015.jpg
fig15
The primary stability was excellent and the implants were immediately loaded using provisional Pek abutments (Figures 14, 15(a), 15(b), and 16).