PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 321286

Implants for fixed and removable prostheses.

Abstract

For those individuals whose oral anatomy contraindicates the use of endosteal implants, there still remains a viable alternative to conventional removable dentures. Both maxillary and mandibular implant dentures of a subperiosteal design will provide a stable implant and a retentive restorative prosthesis. The patient is free from the oral gymnastics required to manipulate such appliances and in the maxilla the dentist is able to eliminate all palatal coverage without compromising the retention of the bridge. The lower subperiosteal implant and the pterygoid extension implant discussed both obtain their stability from accurate fit of the implant substructure to the bone. The implant first becomes more retentive when the periosteum tenaciously reattaches itself to the bone and in turn secures the implant in position (Fig. 13). The restorative procedures follow sound prosthetic prinicples with particular attention on avoiding any impingement of the underlying tissue areas. Implant dentures have truly provided patients a means of exploring alternative treatment modalities other than conventional removable dentures. Literally thousands of patients today are living testimony to the accomplishments of oral implantology when pursued as an exacting science prescribed by colleagues experienced in this revolutionary dental discipline.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

L I Linkow, M S Mahler. 1977. Implants for fixed and removable prostheses.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/321286/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

[Sinus elevation and its control by 3D computer tomography].

We have performed 3D CT examinations before and after 21 uni- and bilateral sinus elevations, immediately prior to loading of the implants and 1 year after the loading. Comparison of the results with those of panoramic and the customary CT examinations yielded the following useful information. Any possible difference between planning and performance may be controlled. The fate of biomaterial implanted in the maxillary sinus was followed. The 3D CT projections providing most information were established (from a superior position downwards; from lateral and posterior positions forwards). Possible errors can be discovered before the implant is loaded. The cases in which it is worthwhile to perform this costly examination were determined: surgical complications, documentation, extensive alveolar atrophy etc. The results of sinus elevation with different bone substitute materials can readily be compared (e.g. autogenous bone + HTR Bioplant on one side, and autogenous bone + Algipore on the other side).

Dental Implantation