Cas clinique « Implant en zircone breveté » par le Dr Harald Fahrenholz (Autriche)

Curriculum vitae

Le Dr. Harald Fahrenholz est né à Königssee, en Bavière, le 19.11.1949.
Après ses études à l’université de Mayence, il a travaillé pendant 25 ans dans son propre cabinet à Grünwald près de Munich. Plus tard, il a travaillé avec le professeur Rolf Ewers à la clinique CMF de Vienne. Depuis 2007, il travaille dans son propre cabinet à la Zahnästhetik am Kohlmarkt. Il a été influencé par des professeurs comme le Dr Peter Kraus, P. K. Thomas, Charles Stewart, le Dr Axel Bauer, le Dr Alexander Gutowski et Lorenzo Vanini.
Par la suite, en implantologie, le Dr Axel Kirsch, le Prof. Per-Ingvar Brånemark,

Ulf Lekholm (cours CTC à la clinique Brånemark, Göteborg), Rolf Ewers, Johan Feith et Ulrich Volz.

Il s’intéresse principalement à la dentisterie sans métal et biologique en implantologie et en prosthodontie.

Cas clinique

Introduction

Ce cas illustre la flexibilité prothétique des implants en zircone et montre qu’ils peuvent remplacer les implants en titane également pour les réhabilitations d’arcades complètes.

Health awareness among our patients has resulted in an increasing demand for metal free implant treatments. Thanks to my friendship with Drs Johan Feith I was introduced to Zirconia implants in general and especially the ZV-3 system, now called the Patent implant system. I started to use the system in 2008. To evaluate the clinical performance of the system I made a retrospective evaluation of my own patients between 2009 and 2015 together with Dr Sofia Karapataki from Athens.

The follow up was about 114 Patent implants. Our clinical survival rate was 97,6 % and no fractures were reported for this period. Implant loss was related to bone augmentation cases, sinus lifts or immediate placements. Until today I have placed 700 Patent implants and I have experienced only three fractures, all two-piece implants. In hindsight, all of them were caused by incorrect prosthetic design. We saw no detachments or fractures of the glass fiber posts. So, my results correlate very well with what has been reported by Becker et al. 2017 and Brüll et al. 2014.

In both studies they also report on the favorable soft tissue response. Brüll et al. even state that the soft tissue response is favorable compared to titanium implants. I can confirm this since I have not yet seen any case of peri-implantitis associated with these implants. In this case report I would like to demonstrate the prosthetic flexibility of the Patent implant system and show that it can replace titanium implants also for full arch rehabilitations.