PET vs No PET

124 Rating(s).


Posted on By yiannis vergoullis In Implants

This is a warm up case for an upcoming presentation I am preparing for DentalXp (Maurice thank you for the honour).

I did not place the previous implants (7 years ago) so I do not know if ST or GBR was done at the time of placement. However, I believe that this still is an eye opener case as you can compare side by side implants placed in the past with standard protocols vs PET protocols.
I hope I will be able to follow up this case long term and see how things stand in time.

We utilised the Cervico System in this case in order to control the prosthetic space and create a proper cervical profile while at the same time respect the root shield position and avoid complications arising from pressure on the membrane shield from the prosthesis.

Unfortunately the patient was reluctant on taking a CBCT :((




Add to Favorites
Add a comment to the discussion on PET vs No PET


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.

11 Comments


Reply


Reply

And once again conviencing difference between PET and non PET sites.
Tissue looks fabulous,Ioannis!It is a new version of VPI cervico,isn't it?
How do you decide between umbrella and concave profile?

Thank you for sharing,looking forward to your presentation!

See you at XP in NY?

Warmly,Snjezana
..


Reply

Thank you Snjezana!!!
Yes the new format of Cervico that is now available produces conceive shape custom healing abutments, however in this case as you can see I further modified their submerged area in order to allow more room for the shield. The important step is that duplicate impression posts were fabricated with Cervico and used by the restorative so the lab had on their model the boundaries of their prosthesis on the sub gingival portion..I believe that there is where the big problem arises..


Reply

Ioannis. Beautiful case management as usual. PET sites stand out as we are now see on a “routine” basis. Love the soft tissue management! Cervico is a big plus! Congratulations on your innovation! Warm regards. Chuck.


Reply

Thank you Chuck! looking forward to see your cases with Cervico!


Reply

Great case and very good comparison between PET and without.
The emergence profile, creat with the custom helings gave the final touch!
Did you place 2 implants SS in # 43-44 and Root sumerge # 42 with a cantilever pontic ?
Do you have xrays?
Regards
Mariano


Reply

So good....just tells ALL the stories!! We look forward to more. Thanks Maurice


Reply

Thanks Maurice!


Reply

Yes Mariano, exactly right. The patient came back to me for implants now on the anterior section, after teeth were extracted...you can see the collapse already happened there...
I will try for CBCT due to anterior implants that need to be placed. I will post follow up of case and xrays. Now I will have a case with implants placed with no PET - Implants with PET - Implants with GBR and no PET ...it will be very interesting to follow :)


Reply

Pictures speake for themselves.
Socket preservation + PET, Great demostration of the PET efectiveness over doing nothing.
Can you show XRays or Cone beams
Regards


Reply


Brasseler
NovaBone