Editorial Type:
Article Category: Research Article
 | 
Online Publication Date: 01 Aug 2011

Dental Implant Rehabilitation of a Patient With Down Syndrome: A Case Report

DDS, MSc, PhD,
DDS, MSc, PhD,
DDS, MSc,
DDS, MSc, PhD, and
DDS, MSc, PhD
Page Range: 481 – 487
DOI: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-10-00003.1
Save
Download PDF

Abstract

Implant-supported rehabilitations show higher patient satisfaction when compared with conventional prostheses. Systemic conditions, however, can affect treatment planning of dental implant supported rehabilitations. The oral structures that are commonly affected in patients with Down syndrome include the tongue (macroglossia), teeth (number and shape), and poor quality alveolar and jaw bones (osteoporotic-like). This clinical case presents an interdisciplinary team approach aimed at achieving functional, phonetic, and esthetic outcomes in a patient with Down syndrome.

Copyright: 2011 by the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine
F
<sc>igures</sc>
1–6.
F igures 1–6.

Figure 1. Frontal view showing smile line of a 36-year-old female patient. Figure 2. Panoramic radiograph. Figure 3. Intra-oral view of 5 multi-unit abutments placed in the mandible. Figure 4. Intraoral occlusal view of the 7 cover screws attached to the dental implants. Figure 5. Multi-unit impression copings secured to the dental implants. Figure 6. Maxillary and mandibular full arch wax try-ins.


F
<sc>igure</sc>
7
<sc>and</sc>
8.
F igure 7 and 8.

Figure 7. Frontal view after delivery of the final prostheses. Figure 8. Presence of heavy calculus on the anterior inferior part of the mandibular full arch screw-retained prosthesis fabricated with metal framework on acrylic resin base material.


F
<sc>igures</sc>
9–11.
F igures 9–11.

Figure 9. Periapical X rays of the mandibular arch taken 28 months after the implants were loaded. Notice presence of maladaptation between the dental implant for number 22 and the microunit abutment. Figure 10. Maxillary periapical X rays taken 28 months after loading. Figure 11. Radiographic analysis of the prostheses delivery 7 months after surgery. Notice presence of peri-implant bone loss around implant number 22. Radiographs taken immediately after loading the lower arch prosthesis.


Contributor Notes

Corresponding author, e‐mail: cleidegr@yahoo.com.br
  • Download PDF