Implantology for general practitioners.

A Fernandes

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 8948231

Implantology for general practitioners.

A Fernandes

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The following is a case report involving the use of implants designed for use by general dental practitioners. Implantology has advanced to the point that it can no longer be ignored by anyone. Most of us as general dentists avoid implantology, owing to the inherent complexity and cost current systems. Changes must be made to implant designs which will allow general dentists to accomplish all aspects of conservative implant treatment. The implants employed in this case permitted prosthetic treatment similar to that performed on endodontically treated teeth, an approach most general dentists understand.

Explore related subjects

Bicuspid Dental Implantation, Endosseous Dental Implants General Practice, Dental Humans Male Molar Case Reports Journal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

A Fernandes. 1996. Implantology for general practitioners.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8948231/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Evaluation of the surface free energy on root canal dentine walls treated with chelating agents and NaOCl.

AIM: To evaluate ex vivo the effects of combined and single use of EDTA, RC-Prep and NaOCl on the surface free energy of canal wall dentine using the captive bubble technique. METHODOLOGY: Eighteen extracted human pre-molar teeth were sectioned at the crown and the apical third, the remaining mid-root portion were bisected longitudinally. Thereafter, the root halves were embedded in resin blocks that exposed the dentine surface of the canal wall. The specimens were randomly assigned to six experimental groups (n = 6) after polishing. The root dentine surfaces of the first two groups were treated with 17% EDTA or RC-Prep followed by 2.5% NaOCl irrigation. Groups 3, 4 and 5 were treated with either 17% EDTA, RC-Prep or 2.5% NaOCl alone. Control specimens were irrigated with saline solution. The surface free energies of experimental groups were calculated by measuring air and octane contact angles on the canal wall dentine. Statistical analysis was performed using the Mann-Whitney U and Bonferroni post-tests at P = 0.05. RESULTS: Compared with the control group; combined and single use of EDTA, RC-Prep and NaOCl irrigation significantly decreased the surface free energy of canal wall dentine surfaces (P < 0.05). Among all groups tested, the use of NaOCl as a final flush following RC-Prep treatment yielded increased wettability. Nevertheless, this value remained lower than that of the control group. CONCLUSION: Use of chelating agents alone or in combination with NaOCl decreased the wettability of root canal wall dentine.

Bicuspid↗

PubMed2007

The penetration of RealSeal primer and Tubliseal into root canal dentinal tubules: a confocal microscopic study.

AIM: To compare penetration depth into dentinal tubules of RealSeal with that of a well-established endodontic sealer (Tubliseal) by means of confocal microscopy. METHODOLOGY: Twenty sound extracted, single-rooted premolars were selected. Following completion of root canal instrumentation, the teeth were divided into two groups using a stratified sampling method, ranking teeth according to size. In group 1, 10 teeth were filled with Gutta-percha and Tubliseal using cold lateral condensation. In group 2, 10 teeth were filled with RealSeal. Both sealers were labelled with Rhodamine B dye. The teeth were sectioned parallel to their long axis resulting in 20 specimens per group. Confocal microscopy was used to assess the penetration depths of the sealers at three sites for each specimen (coronal, middle and apical). Data were analysed statistically using Stata Release 9.1. RESULTS: The penetration depth of RealSeal in each one of the thirds of the root canal was found to be higher than that of Tubliseal (P < 0.05). The penetration depths of the two sealers was found to be significantly different (P = 0.001). The mean penetration value for the RealSeal group was 908.8 microm whereas the mean value for the Tubliseal group was 139.5 microm. CONCLUSIONS: The penetration depth of RealSeal into the root dentinal tubules is significantly greater than that of Tubliseal.

Bicuspid↗

PubMed2007

Maxillary canine--first premolar transposition.

Tooth transpositions present at a relatively low incidence in the world population and primarily affect maxillary canines and premolars. Treatment of this disturbance should take into account aspects such as facial pattern, age, malocclusion, tooth-size discrepancy, stage of eruption, and magnitude of the transposition. Mechanics for correction should be entirely individualized, reducing the risks and adverse effects. Practitioners often select simpler options, indicating extraction of permanent teeth, which is an irreversible procedure that may bring about damages to the patient. This study presents a case report and treatment of unilateral transposition of maxillary canine and premolar with repositioning of affected teeth to their respective normal positions.

Bicuspid↗