Classification system for maxillary fixed dental prostheses

Abstract Purpose To present an addendum to existing fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) classification system for maxillary prostheses. The new classification identifies the relationships between FP‐1 (fixed prostheses) designs and newly developed clinical interdental gingival contours. Materials and Methods Clinical and laboratory descriptions of the various types of full‐arch fixed prostheses are described with photographic illustrations. Benefits and limitations of the various prosthetic designs are explained. Surgical differences in the amount of alveolectomy are illustrated. One clinical case is demonstrated. Results A new classification system for maxillary implant fixed complete dentures is presented. The new system will serve as an improved communication aid for clinicians, patients, and laboratory technicians. Treatment of patients with edentulous maxillae and/or terminal dentitions and implant fixed complete dentures include several options relative to design and materials. Restorative space can have a major impact on prosthesis design and longevity. Early on in dental implant therapy, prostheses were generally made with cast metal frameworks, denture bases and denture teeth. Prosthetic complications were widely reported. With increased clinical experience and improved materials, computer‐aided design and computer‐aided manufacturing (CAD‐CAM) protocols were developed that allowed stronger prostheses to be constructed in reduced or small restorative volumes. FP‐1 ceramic implant‐supported fixed prostheses (CISFPs) are designed to replace only the dental hard tissues and to promote preservation and rehabilitation of gingival soft tissues. The physical properties and minimum thickness requirements in full arch prostheses are influenced by several factors including distances between implants and rigid connector sizes. Conclusion FP‐1 CISFPs may be the closest prostheses the profession can offer edentulous patients that mimic the look, feel, and function of missing dentitions. Aesthetic outcomes of FP‐1 CISFPs are variable and depend on a multitude of factors. This article presented a classification system that builds on existing classification by identifying the level of papilla heights achieved with FP‐1 CISFPs.