RADIOGRAPHIC EVALUATION OF THE EFFECT OF IMPLANT SUPPORTED AND IMPLANT RETAINED DISTAL EXTENSION REMOVABLE PARTIAL DENTURES ON THE SUPPORTING STRUCTURES

Ragia Kotb; Ahmed Ahmed Hassan; Emad Agamy; Gihan Mohammed

doi:10.21608/edj.2021.86774.1717

INFUENCE OF TOOTH-IMPLANT SUPPORTED TELESCOPIC OVERDENTURES WITH CERVICAL CLEARANCE ON SUPPORTING STRUCTURES OF UNILATERAL DISTAL EXTENSION RIDGE

Egyptian Dental Journal ◽

10.21608/edj.2020.79124 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 66 (1) ◽

pp. 485-494

Author(s):

Sahar Abdel-Bary ◽

Nasser Ali

Keyword(s):

Distal Extension ◽

Supporting Structures

Download Full-text

Radiographic Evaluation of Supporting Structures Around Mini Implant Retained Over Denture Utilizing Three Different Denture Base Materials

Indian Journal of Public Health Research & Development ◽

10.5958/0976-5506.2019.03867.1 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 10 (11) ◽

pp. 2094

Author(s):

Moataz Alhosainy Hassan ◽

Amr Mohamed Ismail Badr ◽

Gehan Fekry Mohammed

Keyword(s):

Radiographic Evaluation ◽

Denture Base ◽

Base Materials ◽

Supporting Structures

Download Full-text

Attachment-Retained Unilateral Partial Denture versus Tooth Implant-Supported Prosthesis in Mandibular Distal Extension Cases: A Randomized Controlled Trial

The Open Dentistry Journal ◽

10.2174/1874210602115010626 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 15 (1) ◽

pp. 626-635

Author(s):

Mohamed Sharaf ◽

Asharaf Eskander

Keyword(s):

Bone Loss ◽

Force Measurement ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Conventional Group ◽

Radiographic Evaluation ◽

Partial Denture ◽

Included Patient ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Abutment Teeth ◽

Distal Extension

Objective: To evaluate patients’ satisfaction, biting force measurement, and radiographic evaluation of abutment teeth of tooth implant-supported fixed partial denture, unilateral attachment, and conventional partial denture in mandibular distal extension cases. Materials and Methods: Twenty-four participants were selected according to the following criteria: participants with unilateral mandibular distal extension with last standing second premolar abutment; participants having abutments with sufficient occluso-gingival height and good periodontal condition. Participants were divided into the following three equal groups: participants of the implant group received fixed tooth implant-supported fixed partial dentures, attachment group participants received unilateral attachment removable partial dentures, and conventional group participants received conventional removable partial dentures. The evaluation included patient satisfaction using “OHIP14” questionnaires, biting force measurement, and radiographic evaluation of terminal abutments using the ANOVA test. Results: Participants of the implant group were mainly satisfied with their prosthesis than the attachment group, which is higher than the conventional. Regarding biting force measurement, there is a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between all groups, including the implant group and attachment group, as well as between attachment and conventional group (p < 0.05). The conventional group showed statistically significant (p < 0.05) highest mean bone loss, while there was no statistically significant difference between implant and attachment groups; both showed statistically significantly lower mean amounts of bone loss. Conclusion: The tooth implant-supported fixed prosthesis could be considered a superior line of treatment for managing distal extension cases. Unilateral attachment, which is considered an excellent alternative in the case of implant placement, is not recommended.

Download Full-text

RPI and RPL clasp masticatory load distribution in lower free end denture case with photoelastic methods

Padjadjaran Journal of Dentistry ◽

10.24198/pjd.vol19no1.14181 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 19 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Dahlia Sutanto ◽

Muslich Mahmud ◽

Poedji Rahajoeningsih

Keyword(s):

Load Distribution ◽

Denture Base ◽

Partial Denture ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Direction Of Movement ◽

Abutment Teeth ◽

Functional Movements ◽

Distal Extension ◽

Supporting Structures ◽

Occlusal Load

The extent and direction of movement of removable partial dentures during function are influenced by the nature of supporting structures and the design of the prosthesis since forces are transmitted to abutment teeth by rest, guide planes, and direct retainers during functional movements. Because of the lack of tooth support distally, the denture base will have tissueward underfunction proportionate to the quality (displaceability) of the supporting soft tissue, the accuracy of the denture base, and the total occlusal load applied. The movement of the base under function determines the occlusal efficiency of the partial denture and the degree to which the abutment teeth are subjected to torque and tipping stresses.The purpose of this study is to know the functional load exerts with RPI and RPL direct retainer in bilateral distal extension. This study is a laboratory experiment employing samples of 5 frames using RPI and 5 frames using RPL direct retainer design. Testing was conducted by Vishay Teaching Polariscope type 080. The result was noted and analyzed statistically using ANOVA.The result of this study indicates that F calculation value for frame with RPI and RPL direct retainer design is 5,35 and 6,11 Mpa; F calculation for the occlusal load distribution on first premolar and edentulous area is 276,90 Mpa and 171,53 Mpa; F calculation for occlusal load distribution on first premolar and edentulous area employing RPI and RPL direct retainer design is 9,17 and 11,96 Mpa. This statistical calculation shows that there is a significant difference between RPI and RPL direct retainer design, the occlusal load concentrated at edentulous area either RPI or RPL direct retainer, and the occlusal load distribution between the first premolar and edentulous area are more uniform on RPI direct retainer design.

Download Full-text

RADIOGRAPHIC EVALUATION OF TELESCOPIC PIER ABUTMENTS IN MANDIBULAR DISTAL EXTENSION CASES

International Journal of Advanced Research ◽

10.21474/ijar01/11950 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 8 (10) ◽

pp. 1177-1178

Author(s):

Marwah H. Mostafa ◽

◽

Wessam M. Dehis ◽

Hisham S. ElGabry ◽

◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Study ◽

Linear Measurement ◽

Radiographic Evaluation ◽

P Value ◽

Group I ◽

Baseline Recording ◽

Metal Frame ◽

Bone Height ◽

Distal Extension

Purpose: The aim of this clinical study is to compare the effect of both definitive partial dentures and telescopic partial dentures on bone height changes around the terminal abutments in mandibular distal extension cases with pier abutment. Materials and Methods: Fourteen mandibular Kennedys Class I classification with pier abutment patients were divided into two equal groups. First group (I) received definitive metal-frame removable partial dentures (RPD), while the second group (II) received telescopic RPD. The supporting bone height around the terminal abutments was radiographically evaluated. Next to baseline recording following denture insertion, bone height measurements were obtained at regular recall follow-up appointments of 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. Radiographic evaluation was carried outusing the Digora system and customized acrylic template constructed for each patient individually. The linear measurement system supplied by the Digora machine software was utilized for recording bone height changes mesial and distal to the main terminal abutments. Results: Comparison was performed between definitive and telescopic groups utilizing independent t-test and resulted in differencesof no significant for all follow-up recalls (P value > 0.05). Conclusion:Definitive RPD and telescopic RPD appeared to besuccessful both clinically and biologically. However, Telescopic RPD proved to be superior to the definitive one regarding bone height measurements.

Download Full-text

Effect of Occlusal Reactive and Thermoplastic Denture Bases on Supporting Structures in Lower Distal Extension Partial Dentures

Al-Azhar Dental Journal for Girls ◽

10.21608/adjg.2018.20021 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 5 (4) ◽

pp. 359-364

Author(s):

Yasmin Seif Eldeen Zidan ◽

Hala Mohammad Gamal El-Din ◽

Dina Mahmoud Kholief

Keyword(s):

Distal Extension ◽

Supporting Structures

Download Full-text

THE EFFECT OF TWO DIFFERENT IMPLANT ATTACHMENT JUNCTION DESIGNS ON MANDIBULAR KENNEDY CLASS (II) SUPPORTING STRUCTURES: A RADIOGRAPHIC EVALUATION

Egyptian Dental Journal ◽

10.21608/edj.2016.92717 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 62 (1) ◽

pp. 355-362

Author(s):

Mohamed Abdalla ◽

Ahmed Fahmy

Keyword(s):

Class Ii ◽

Radiographic Evaluation ◽

Supporting Structures

Download Full-text

Motion Analysis of the Cervical Spine

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2004.sepoct01 ◽

2004 ◽

Vol 9 (5) ◽

pp. 1-11

Author(s):

Patrick R. Luers

Keyword(s):

Cervical Spine ◽

Intervertebral Disk ◽

Radiographic Evaluation ◽

Ligamentous Injury ◽

Pattern Of Injury ◽

Motion Segment ◽

Single Pattern ◽

Compensatory Motion ◽

Loss Of Motion ◽

Flexion And Extension

Abstract The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fifth Edition, defines a motion segment as “two adjacent vertebrae, the intervertebral disk, the apophyseal or facet joints, and ligamentous structures between the vertebrae.” The range of motion from segment to segment varies, and loss of motion segment integrity is defined as “an anteroposterior motion of one vertebra over another that is greater than 3.5 mm in the cervical spine, greater than 2.5 mm in the thoracic spine, and greater than 4.5 mm in the lumbar spine.” Multiple etiologies are associated with increased motion in the cervical spine; some are physiologic or compensatory and others are pathologic. The standard radiographic evaluation of instability and ligamentous injury in the cervical spine consists of lateral flexion and extension x-ray views, but no single pattern of injury is identified in whiplash injuries. Fluoroscopy or cineradiographic techniques may be more sensitive than other methods for evaluating subtle abnormal motion in the cervical spine. The increased motion thus detected then must be evaluated to determine whether it represents normal physiologic motion, normal compensatory motion, motion related to underlying degenerative disk and/or facet disease, or increased motion related to ligamentous injury. Imaging studies should be performed and interpreted as instructed in the AMA Guides.

Download Full-text