192 Theories and techniques of oral implantology

Fig. 5-109. The supraplant, or superplant, used by Izikowitz. A, An occlusal view with a three-tooth saddle and one implant. B, A vestibular view, showing the supraplant inserted into the gum against the bone. C and D, Two free-end saddle restorations using a supraplant. Both show the supraplant closely fitted under the mucosa and over the individual's ridge. (From Izikowitz, L., and Leijon, G.: The superplant—a clinical, radiologic, histologic and bacteriologic follow-up investigation of a type of fixed saddlebridge, Acta Odont. Scand. 9:153, 1966.)

Fig. 5-110. A maxillary supraplant showing no evidence of bone resorption. A, The implant just after insertion; B, the implant several months later. (From Izikowitz, L., and Leijon, G.: The superplant—a clinical, radiologic, histologic and bacteriologic follow-up investigation of a type of fixed saddlebridge, Acta Odont. Scand. 9:153, 1966.)

advantages are evident with magnetic implants. First, unless the ridges are so poorly resorbed that a conventional denture can no longer function efficiently, there is rarely ever a need for utilization of these implants. In cases of extensive resorption, subperiosteal implants are usually more successful. Second, if magnets are used in alveolar bone they must be set very close to the alveolar crest. Magnetic at-traction diminishes in direct proportion to the distance between the magnets. Third, a conventional denture is used with the magnets. Because such a denture is fabricated to fit over the soft tissue ridge, it will exhibit all the disadvantages of a routine denture, including sore spots, overextensions, and looseness. The usual treatment for such complaints, particularly continual soreness, is to relieve the tissue-bearing surfaces of the denture. As a result, the magnets in the denture may become exposed and detached, or, if reliners are used, the distance between the magnets increases and the attraction between them diminishes.