Research Article
Fabrication and Use of a Customized Provisional Composite Abutment in Dental Practice
Table 3
Comparative characteristics of positive and negative aspects of the conventional and new methods.
| | Parameters | Comparison group with gingiva former (11 patients) | Experimental group with provisional composite abutment (9 patients) | | Placement in mature bone (10 patients) | Immediate placement in implant after tooth extraction (1 patient) | Placement in mature bone (5 patients) | Immediate placement in implant after tooth extraction (4 patients) |
| | Microbial contamination | + (1 patient) | + | – | – | | Bone augmentation loss | – | + | – | – | | Narrow gingival profile requiring further shaping | + | + | – | – | | Increased adhesion to plaque | – | – | + | + | | The need for additional tissue immobilization | – | + | – | – | | Tight sealing of the soft tissue-bone space | + | – | + | + | | Quick formation of the necessary gingival profile (according to the shape of the tooth) | – | – | + | + | | Increased requirements for the dentist’s manual skills | – | – | + | + | | The possibility of obtaining additional tissue volume through grafting | – | – | + | + | | Saving orthopedic rehabilitation time (7–21 days) | – | – | + | + |
|
|
Note. +: yes; −: no.
|
