INTRUSION VIA HYPEROCCLUSION against cantilevered bridge. Andrews Intrusion Phenomenon. Part #2

26 Rating(s).


Posted on By Anton Andrews In Occlusion

15-months follow-up.
I was really curious to see this patient again. He had been gone for over a year and finally came back.
"Facts are stubborn things" - INTRUSION VIA HYPEROCCLUSION WORKS!
On the pano taken at MIP, all teeth are in contact.
Besides intruded #13, the first molar also had been moved up a millimeter or so.
The Cantilevered implant bridge is in great shape with nice ST and HT surroundings.
Comments, discussion

pano comparison
bite view LLQ before

bite view @15-month check
initial vs implant pano


Add to Favorites
Add a comment to the discussion on INTRUSION VIA HYPEROCCLUSION against cantilevered bridge. Andrews Intrusion Phenomenon. Part #2


Upload photos
1.  Photo Title:

2.  Photo Title:

Would you like to follow this post?
Case has been added to your favorites.
Case has been removed from your favorites.
Thank you for your input. Your comment has been posted.
You are now following this member. You will get notified on any new topics posted by this member.
You are no longer following this member. You will not get notified on any new topics posted by this member.
Edit Comment
1.  Photo Title:
Current Image:   Delete Image
2.  Photo Title:
Current Image:   Delete Image
Comment has been updated.

8 Comments

CAD WITH RRR
CAD SCREENSHOT THE CROSSSECTION


Reply

LOWER ARCH OCCLUSAL VIEW BEFORE
LLQ @ 15-MONTHS


Reply

Anton. Nice case and follow up! Too bad we don't have a more accurate way to measure your results. I still can't believe the opposing tooth will survive without Endodontics or fracture, but the facts or the facts :-). Best regards. Chuck


Reply

Thanks Charles,
I will try to overlap 3D models when I'll get a chance to see and measure exact movements.
I like the fact that no one is questioning success of the cantilever bridge:)


Reply

Anton great oportunity to change our minds!
I was waiting to see this images.
Tell me: the patient has report some discomfort at the begining or so? Is he a bruxer?
Is the premolar moving buccolingual?
Have you noticed any root resorption?
Thanks for posting
Jorge


Reply

Hi Jorge,
She answers below
Tell me: the patient has report some discomfort at the begining or so? Is he a bruxer? No discomfort had been reported, just some "awkwardness " because it was impossible to close completely in MIP. Pt is a bruxer but didn't want a NG. I guess it helped to intrude faster:)
Is the premolar moving buccolingual? Yes there was buccal movement , which had been beneficial, since upper teeth move lingually and down after loss of antagonists
Have you noticed any root resorption? No root resorption , and no mobility (now) .


Reply

Andon that is great documentation!
This is at least proof of principle.

What kind of considerations do you apply when planing these cases in order to get the desired result?
(i.e. size of contact, position of contact;during occlusion, lateral movements, etc?

Thank you for sharing!

Yiannis


Reply

Thank you Yannis,
I have completed few Intrusion over Occlusion cases and yes, certain conclusions could be drawn.
First one - it works.
The second one - it works better against implants than teeth.
The third- it has better results if used on one side of the mouth compared to bi-lateral application (which I also had done).
There are also details regarding what size of implant being used, what types of teeth could be intruded easier than the other etc.
All that i hopefully will publish soon:)


Reply

Related Posts


KLS Martin
Dentalxp