PubMed · 356100
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
J P Engelhardt. 1977. [Telescopic anchor for partial denture (III)].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/356100/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
The increasing use of endosseous osseointegrated implants to replace natural teeth will inevitably lead to an increase in patients presenting in general dental practice with failing implants. A fractured implant body is not a common cause of failure, however it is a common cause of late failure. There is evidence that careful treatment planning can reduce the incidence of fracture. This paper describes a case demonstrating the management of implant fracture and discussing a possible mechanism for this failure. Some of the previously described factors that have been thought to contribute towards fracture are also discussed.
All practitioners wish for success in their restorative work mainly due to their desire to do the best for their patients, but increasingly the achievement of success, ie the avoidance of failure, is felt to be necessary to avoid the spectre of litigation. The number of patient-led litigation cases is on the increase and the majority involve crown and bridge work.
Theoretical and clinical studies of resistance form are reviewed, supporting the basic prosthodontic principle that resistance form is an essential element in preparation design. Concepts of the"on-off" nature of resistance form, its application in guidelines for minimally acceptable preparation taper, and the controversy over whether there is a relationship with clinical success or failure are discussed. It is more challenging to obtain resistive molar preparations than resistive anterior preparations, and uneven preparation margins can make parallel 0 degree taper preparations lack resistance form. The usefulness of grooves, especially in molar preparations with uneven margins, is illustrated. The Lewis and Zuckerman techniques for evaluating resistive areas of a preparation are shown to be consistent with each other but not with the Weed method.