EC Dental Science

The success of immediate loading protocols is contingent upon several key factors that must be meticulously evaluated prior to treatment. One of the most crucial factors is the quality and quantity of the available bone at the implant site, as this directly influences the primary stability of the implants. Sufficient bone density and volume are essential to support the immediate functional loads placed on the implants.

For patients presenting with anatomical challenges, such as inadequate bone in the posterior regions of the jaw, utilizing tilted posterior implants can be an effective strategy. This technique not only enhances the stability of the implant-supported prosthesis but also allows for the optimal use of the existing bone, aligning with the widely recognized All-on-4 treatment concept. By strategically placing tilted implants, clinicians can achieve favorable outcomes while minimizing the need for invasive procedures such as bone grafting, thus streamlining the treatment plan and reducing patient morbidity.

This clinical report details the application of a partial All-on-4 technique in a patient presenting with failing teeth on one side of the maxilla, while also addressing the future necessity of extracting periodontally compromised teeth on the contralateral side. The All-on-4 treatment modality has gained traction for its ability to provide patients with a fixed prosthesis supported by as few as four implants, optimizing functional and aesthetic outcomes while minimizing surgical intervention.

 Keywords: Immediate Loading; All-On-4; Dental Implant

1. Albrektsson T., et al. “The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: A review and proposed criteria of success”. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 1 (1986): 11-25.
2. Marković A., et al. “Immediate vs early loading of bone level tapered dental implants with hydrophilic surface in rehabilitation of fully edentulous maxilla: clinical and patient centered outcomes”. Journal of Oral Implantology 5 (2022): 358-369.
3. Tettamanti L., et al. “Immediate loading implants: review of the critical aspects”. Oral and Implantology2 (2017): 129-139.
4. Payne AG and Solomons YF. “The prosthodontic maintenance requirements of mandibular mucosa and implant-supported overdentures: a review of the literature”. International Journal of Prosthodontics 3 (2000): 238-243.
5. Del Fabbro M., et al. “Systematic review of survival rates for implants placed in the grafted maxillary sinus”. The International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry6 (2004): 565-577.
6. Del Fabbro M., et al. “Tilted implants for the rehabilitation of edentulous jaws: a systematic review”. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research4 (2012): 612-621.
7. Soto-Penaloza D., et al. “The all- on-four treatment concept: Systematic review”. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry 3 (2017): e474-e488.
8. Bevilacqua M., et al. “The influence of cantilever length and implant inclination on stress distribution in maxillary implant-supported fixed dentures”. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry1 (2011): 5-13.
9. Sannino G and Barlattani A. “Straight versus angulated abutments on tilted implants in immediate fixed rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible: a 3-year retrospective comparative study”. The International Journal of Prosthodontics3 (2016): 219-226.
10. Maló P., et al. “"All-on-4" immediate-function concept for completely edentulous maxillae: a clinical report on the medium (3 years) and long-term (5 years) outcomes”. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research1 (2012): e139-e150.
11. Ayna M., et al. “Comprehensive comparison of the 5-year results of all-on-4 mandibular implant systems with acrylic and ceramic suprastructures”. The Journal of Oral Implantology6 (2015): 675-683.
12. Scarano A., et al. “Zirconia crowns cemented on titanium bars using CAD/CAM: a five-year follow-up prospective clinical study of 9 patients”. BMC Oral Health1 (2019): 286.