ORAL IMPLANTOLOGY
provisionalization can offer better conditions
to improve soft tissue anatomy around
implants with predictable aesthetic results
(2-5). It is worth remembering that patientreported measures may be more sensitive
than objective measures for detecting
differences between prosthetic treatments
(6-9). The discrepancy between the patient’s
perceptions and the outcomes of functional
tests suggests that study subjects’ and
scientists’ concepts of function differ, or that
subjective and objective data assess very
different aspects of oral behavior.
Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges the support provided
by the Department of Graduate Prosthodontics
of the School of Dentistry – University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill (Program Director – Dr.
Lyndon Cooper) for the completion of this
treatment.
The author’s gratitude is also extended to
Dr. Marlene Teo (Department of Graduate
Periodontics), who was responsible for the
surgical phases, Dr. Hitomi Akimoto, who started
the restorative phase, and Dr. Dina Dedi, who
closely supervised the entire restorative phase.
Conflict of interest statement
There are no known conflicts of interest
associated with th is publication and there
has been no significant financial support
for this work that could have influenced its
outcom.
Bibliography
1. Stein RS, Kuwata M. A dentist and a dental technologist
analyze current ceramo-metal procedures. Dent Clin North
Am 1977;21(4):729-749.
2. Petrungaro PS. Creation and preservation of natural soft
tissue emergence profiles around dental implants in the
esthetic zone. J Cosmetic Dent 2009;24(4):66-80.
3. Rodriguez AM, Rosenstiel SF. Esthetic considerations related
to bone and soft tissue maintenance and development
around dental implants: report of the Committee on Research
in Fixed Prosthodontics of the American Academy of Fixed
Prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 2012;108(4):259-267.
4. Wittneben JG, Buser D, Belser UC, Brägger U. Peri-implant
soft tissue conditioning with provisional restorations in the
esthetic zone: the dynamic compression technique. Int J
Periodontics Restorative Dent 2013;33(4):447-455.
5. Dos Santos Nunes Reis JM, de Oliveira Abi-Rached F,
Scardueli CR, Pinelli LA. Modified indexing technique for
136
the immediate interim restoration of a dental implant. J
Prosthet Dent 2014;112(2):369-372.
6. de Grandmont P, Feine JS, Taché R, Boudrias P, Donohue
WB, Tanguay R, Lund JP. Within subject comparisons of
implant-supported mandibular prostheses: psychometric
evaluation. J Dent Res 1994;73(5):1096-1104.
7. Feine JS, de Grandmont P, Boudrias P, Brien N, LaMarche
C, Taché R, Lund JP. Within-subject comparisons of implantsupported mandibular prostheses: choice of prosthesis. J
Dent Res 1994;73(5):1105-1111.
8. Feine JS, Maskawi K, de Grandmont P, Donohue WB,
Tanguay R, Lund JP. Within-subject comparisons of
implant-supported mandibular prostheses: evaluation of
masticatory function. J Dent Res 1994;73(10):1646-1656.
9. Garrett NR, Kapur KK, Perez P. Effects of improvements
of poorly fitting dentures and new dentures on patient
satisfaction. J Prosthet Dent 1996;76(4):403-413.
STOMA.EDUJ (2014) 1 (2)