PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Mandibular Prosthesis”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 199 records · Page 11Linked to original sources
PubMed1997

Cephalometric evaluation of maxillary complete, mandibular fixed-removable partial prosthesis: a 5-year longitudinal study.

Lateral cephalometric films were obtained from 10 subjects treated with maxillary complete dentures opposed to bar-supported mandibular removable partial dentures. The amount of bone resorption was determined following a 5-year period of denture use. In the maxilla, slight resorption was observed; a considerable amount had taken place in the mandible. Comparing the results of previous studies with the present one, it is suggested that bar-supported mandibular free-end saddle partial denture design has beneficial effects in terms of reduced bone resorption.

Alveolar Bone Loss↗
PubMed2003

Comparison of maxillary implant-supported prosthesis in irradiated and non-irradiated patients.

In order to investigate the influence of radiation therapy after the treatment of maxillary implant-supported prostheses, 27 patients received a total of 131 implants in maxilla after oral cancer treatment and/or reconstructive surgery. Among them, 25 received maxillary implant-supported prostheses. The cumulative survival rates of implants and prostheses were evaluated by the product-limit-estimates method according to Kaplan-Meier. The cumulative survival rate of implants and prostheses in irradiated patients was compared with that in non-irradiated patients by statistical Log-rank test. The results showed that 112 implants were observed after implant loading. The implants cumulative survival rate was approximately 65% for overall patients. The cumulative prosthesis successful rate was approximately 88% for all 25 patients. Log-rank test analysis revealed that there was a significant difference in cumulative implants survival rates between non-irradiated and irradiated maxillary bone (P < 0.01). It was concluded that the implants and prostheses in irradiated patients have significantly lower survival rates than in non-irradiated patients.

Aged↗
PubMed1993

In vivo deterioration of proplast-teflon temporomandibular joint interpositional implants: a scanning electron microscopic and energy-dispersive X-ray analysis.

The surgical treatment of internal derangements of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) often involves disc removal. Alloplastic interpositional implants for disc replacement have been widely used to avoid the development of osteoarthritic changes in the TMJ. This study reports the in vivo wear characteristics of Proplast-Teflon (Vitek Inc, Houston, TX) interpositional implants (PTIPI) in 12 patients who had their implants for 13 to 71 (mean 54.6 +/- 5.8 SEM) months. In all cases, changes in the condyle and fossa were found resulting from resorption and replacement of the articulating bone by granulomatous tissue. All implants showed significant signs of wear, such as thinning, cracks, and tears, and overt perforations were seen in five cases. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) combined with energy-dispersive x-ray microanalysis (EDAX) showed numerous microfragments of the PTIPI in the peri-implant soft tissues. Microfragments were demonstrated by their aluminum content. In addition to the inflammatory foreign-body reaction, it is suggested that there also were toxic and hypersensitivity reactions to aluminum involved in the pathogenesis of the bone destruction.

Adult↗
PubMed1999

[Prognosis and prognostic factors of endosseous implants in the irradiated jaw].

In comparison to tumor patients not receiving radiotherapy, the rehabilitation of masticatory function after head and neck irradiation is limited due to radiation-induced caries, radioxerostomia, and the risk of osteoradionecrosis. This study focused on implants in the irradiated jaw and on the evaluation of the prognosis and the effect of potential factors on the prognosis. The retrospective study covered 197 implants (47 patients) from 1988 to 1997. The implant prognosis was determined by implant survival statistics (Kaplan-Meier). Losses not related to the implants were censored. In addition, groups were formed according to factors potentially affecting the prognosis. The significance of differences in the groups relative to survival were tested using the log-rank test. Twelve (6.1%) implants from a total of 197 were lost due to peri-implantitis, and eight (4.1%) due to possible biomechanical stress. A total of 52 losses (26.4%) due to death of patients and two (1.0%) due to resection of the jaw were censored; 111 (56.3%) implants remained at recall and the average interval was 33 months. The rates of implant survival (Kaplan-Meier) after 1 and 2 years were 95%, after 3 and 4 years 92%, and after 5 and 6 years 72%. The univariate analysis of group comparisons showed a significantly lower rate of loss after perimplant flap reconstruction (p = 0.036). There was no effect due to the doses of irradiation (p = 0.16), chemotherapy (p = 0.90), or peri-implant osteoplasty (p = 0.84). Although none of the implants inserted before radiotherapy had to be explanted, the implant survival difference in the very heterogeneous groups was not significant (preirradiation, n = 29; postirradiation: n = 156; p = 0.13). According to the literature, the rate of survival of teeth which were sound before radiotherapy (1 year, 75%; 5 years, 45%) was distinctly lower than the survival of enossal implants (1 year, 95%; 5 years, 72%). The high-quality rehabilitation of masticatory function with implant-based protheses is the preferred method of treatment for irradiated tumor patients. In addition, contraindications for enossal implants were ruled out for all studied factors affecting prognosis.

Adult↗
PubMed1992

In vitro wear performance of Proplast TMJ disc implants.

This study investigates the in vitro wear performance of Proplast-Teflon Interpositional Implants (PTIPI; Vitek, Inc, Houston, TX), employing a mechanical TMJ simulator. Predictions of in vivo service life of PTIPIs are presented based on the in vitro wear testing data. Commonly employed laboratory testing methodologies are discussed in the development of alloplastic TMJ devices. Penetrative wear rates of the PTIPI at a 20-lb (9.1 kg) load were calculated to be 2.29 mm/100,000 cycles, yielding a predicted in vivo service life of PTIPIs of approximately 3 years. These results combined with reported clinical fate of this implant indicate that the intermediate- and long-term survival of this implant are uncertain.

Cartilage, Articular↗
PubMed1976

Fractures of the edentulous maxilla and mandible.

An evaluation and treatment of fracture of the edentulous maxilla and/or mandible is presented. The Le-Fort classification of maxillary fractures is the foundation for the program of care. Immobilization techniques are based upon the support of a fracture by suspension from the adjacent stable segments to the modified prosthesis. The mandibular fractures are repaired by interosseous wire fixation in the body and symphysis region, the other fracture sites are supported by circumferential wiring to the prosthesis for immobilization. General principles of time of repair, diet, types of healing factors are reviewed.

Aged↗
PubMed2005

[Bar construction upon the implants--successful method of treatment of toothless jaws].

Frontal parts of jaws are the most convenient for invasion of sufficient number of supporting implants that can solve the problem of fixation of dentures (prosthesis). Bar Construction upon the implants that have supporting attachments are one of the best fixation systems of removable dentures (prosthesis) on toothless jaws white damaging alveolar ridge. Elastic metal patrice is the same kind of fixation. But the priority of it is the simplicity and cost effectiveness. We have discussed one clinical history. We have made implantation to 78 years old patient, and then we made bar construction and elastic metal patrice for him. After 6 years it will be clear whether this type of construction is successful or not.

Aged↗