Skip to content 
Modern full-arch rehabilitation is not a choice between “all teeth out” or “patch and pray.” In the right patient, a hybrid plan that preserves healthy anterior teeth and restores posterior support with implants can deliver chewing power, facial support and aesthetics with long-term stability.
Below is the treating doctor’s verbatim case description, followed by an explanation of the evidence behind the plan and practical takeaways for patients and clinicians.
Doctor’s Clinical Summary
Detailed Clinical Report – Full-Mouth Oral Rehabilitation Using a Combination of Implants and Natural Teeth in the Maxillary and Mandibular Arches
Patient Presentation and Initial Clinical Assessment:
The patient, in good general health, presented for a prosthetic evaluation with clear indications for full-mouth rehabilitation of both dental arches. Dental history and objective clinical findings revealed the following:
In the maxillary arch:
- Bilateral posterior edentulism
- Presence of anterior teeth (13–24) with good structural integrity and no apical or endodontic pathology, as confirmed clinically and radiographically
- Compromised masticatory function and labial aesthetics due to lack of posterior support
In the mandibular arch:
- Advanced edentulism in the posterior segments
- Anterior teeth exhibiting high-grade mobility (Grade III) with insufficient periodontal support, deemed unsuitable for long-term preservation
Therapeutic Plan and Phased Management:
Phase I – Maxillary Arch Rehabilitation:
Management of posterior segments:
- Placement of 4 dental implants in the posterior-lateral maxillary zones (premolar/molar regions) to ensure fixed prosthetic support
In cases of insufficient bone height, the following procedures were performed:
- Crestal sinus lift
- Bone augmentation using xenogeneic or alloplastic biomaterials
- Application of a resorbable collagen membrane to support osteogenic regeneration
Preservation of anterior teeth (13–24):
- Teeth were preserved vital and free of endodontic intervention due to favorable apical and periodontal conditions
- These teeth were incorporated as natural abutments in the final restoration, consistent with hybrid rehabilitation concepts
Phase II – Mandibular Arch Rehabilitation:
- Atraumatic extraction of the remaining mandibular teeth was performed due to advanced mobility and lack of periodontal support
- Placement of 5 dental implants distributed antero–posteriorly to enable a biomechanically stable fixed prosthetic solution
- Soft tissue management was conducted to optimize emergence profiles and prepare for final prosthetic components
Phase III – Provisional Prosthetics and Functional Verification:
The patient was fitted with a fixed provisional prosthesis, which served to:
- Stabilize peri-implant soft tissues
- Evaluate the restored vertical dimension
- Assess phonetics, occlusion, and aesthetics
- This provisional phase lasted 6 months, during which successful osseointegration and patient adaptation to the prosthetic structure were monitored
Phase IV – Final Restoration:
A definitive restoration was completed, consisting of:
- 24 zirconia prosthetic units, digitally designed with CAD/CAM technology
- Titanium substructure, ensuring mechanical strength and passive fit
- Combined tooth–implant support, following principles of optimal load distribution and long-term stability
Therapeutic Outcomes:
Functional:
- Complete restoration of masticatory function and stable occlusion
- Occlusal balance harmonized within the restorative architecture
Aesthetic:
- Harmonization of the smile line with the facial profile
- Restorations featuring translucency and natural morphology
- Gingival contours aesthetically and biologically integrated
Biological:
- Full osseointegration of implants
- Preservation of vital natural teeth without endodontic treatment
- Integrity of tissues surrounding both implants and natural teeth
Psychosocial:
- High subjective patient satisfaction with the final result
- Restoration of self-confidence and improvement in speech and appearance
Post-Treatment Follow-Up Protocol:
The patient was enrolled in a customized maintenance and monitoring program (every 4–6 months) aimed at:
- Evaluating the condition of implants and natural teeth
- Monitoring the integrity of the prosthetic restoration
- Enhancing long-term success through professional care and oral hygiene education
Why this plan makes clinical sense: the evidence in plain English
Hybrid support: combining implants with natural teeth
When healthy anterior teeth are stable, they can be retained and splinted with implants. Reviews show acceptable 5- to 10-year survival for such prostheses when rigid splinting and strict maintenance are applied.
Posterior maxilla: crestal sinus lift and GBR
For patients with reduced bone height, transcrestal sinus augmentation and GBR with xenogeneic/alloplastic grafts and collagen membranes achieve high survival with low complications.
How many implants are enough?
Research confirms excellent outcomes with 4–6 implants in each arch. What matters most is anteroposterior spread and hygiene access. In this case, 5 mandibular implants were biomechanically sound.
Provisional phase for verification
A fixed provisional prosthesis allows soft tissue maturation, phonetic testing and occlusal adjustments. Literature strongly supports provisionals to de-risk final restorations.
Final materials: zirconia over titanium
Zirconia units offer aesthetics and strength, while a titanium substructure supports passive fit and durability. CAD/CAM frameworks typically show superior fit compared to cast methods.
Maintenance: why 4–6 month recalls matter
Supportive care every 4–6 months reduces peri-implant disease risk, especially in patients with past periodontal issues. Consensus guidance stresses this as a critical step, not optional.
How Hospital One executes this predictably
- CBCT planning for precise implant positioning and sinus assessment.
- Digital impressions for comfort and accuracy in prosthetic design.
- CAD/CAM zirconia prosthetics for strong, aesthetic restorations.
- Laser-assisted soft-tissue management to support healing and emergence profiles.
- Hospital-grade sterility protocols throughout augmentation and implant placement.
Treatment flow at a glance
- Plan with CBCT and prosthetic-first design.
- Maxilla: 4 posterior implants, with sinus lift/GBR where needed.
- Mandible: atraumatic extractions, 5 implants with AP spread, soft tissue optimisation.
- Provisional (≈6 months): stabilise tissues, test occlusion and phonetics.
- Definitive: 24 zirconia units on titanium substructure, passive fit verification, set recall schedule.
Hybrid Rehabilitation at Hospital One
This case illustrates how Full-Mouth Oral Rehabilitation Combining Implants and Natural Teeth can restore function, stability and aesthetics while preserving what nature still provides. By blending digital planning, evidence-based surgery and biocompatible materials, Hospital One ensures patients achieve long-term results and renewed confidence.
Take the first step towards your personalised rehabilitation plan. Contact Hospital One today to book your free consultation.
FAQs on Full-Mouth Oral Rehabilitation
Healthy anterior teeth provide proprioception and support when integrated into a hybrid plan.
Yes. Studies show high implant survival with low complication rates when indications are respected.
They support predictable bone regeneration and long-term stability.
It’s about spread and biomechanics, not just numbers. Five well-placed implants provide strong support.
It lets tissues mature and occlusion/phonetics be tested before the final work.
Zirconia provides aesthetics and chip resistance; titanium ensures mechanical strength and passive fit.
Through CAD/CAM design, digital verification and careful seating protocols.
Prosthetic issues like chipping or framework stress. These are reduced by careful occlusion and recalls.
Temporary adaptation is common. The provisional helps refine phonetics before the final restoration.
Every 4–6 months, following international consensus for peri-implant health.
Yes, but strict maintenance and supportive therapy can protect outcomes.
References
- von Stein-Lausnitz M, et al. Survival and complication behaviour of tooth-implant supported prostheses. J Dent. 2019. ScienceDirect
- Narde J, et al. Survival of tooth-implant supported prostheses. BMC Oral Health. 2024. BioMed Central
- Kadkhodazadeh M, et al. Clinical outcomes of implants placed with transcrestal sinus augmentation: meta-analysis. J Dent. 2024. ScienceDirect
- Cobo-Vázquez CM, et al. Crestal sinus lift techniques: systematic review. 2025. PMC
- Duarte ND, et al. Biomaterials for GBR/GTR: membranes and bone substitutes. 2025. PMC
- Polido WD, et al. Number of implants for complete-arch fixed prostheses: systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018. Wiley Online Library
- Sun X, et al. Biomechanics of all-on-4 vs all-on-5: FEA insights into load distribution. 2023. PMC
- Neale D, et al. Development of implant soft-tissue emergence profile with provisionals. J Dent Res. 1994. ScienceDirect
- Chantler J, et al. Importance of an evaluation phase when increasing OVD. Br Dent J. 2024. PubMed
- AlRasheed F, et al. CAD/CAM frameworks show superior fit vs cast frameworks: systematic review. 2022. PMC
- Froimovici FO, et al. Fixed full-arch zirconia restorations: clinical outcomes. 2024. PMC
- Parmar N, et al. Monolithic zirconia frameworks in implant-supported full arches: commentary on evidence. 2025. Nature
- Pjetursson BE, et al. Survival and complications of implant-supported FDPs: systematic review. 2012. PubMed
- Araújo TG, et al. Long-term implant maintenance: systematic review. 2024. PMC
- Herrera D, et al. S3 clinical practice guideline for prevention and treatment of peri-implant diseases. J Clin Periodontol. 2023. Wiley Online Library
- Perussolo J, et al. Maintenance of peri-implant health in general practice. Br Dent J. 2024. Nature
Download Our Brochure
