PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Denture, Overlay”

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 253 records · Page 14Linked to original sources
PubMed1993

Differences two years after tooth extraction in mandibular bone reduction in patients treated with immediate overdentures or with immediate complete dentures.

In a randomized controlled clinical trial, 74 patients who required immediate dentures were randomly treated with immediate overdentures on two lower canines or with immediate complete dentures. Mandibular bone reduction was measured by use of oblique lateral cephalometric radiographs made at baseline and the results compared with those of one year and two years after denture treatment. Analysis of the data showed that the average bone reduction in the lower canine regions in the first year was 0.9 mm in the immediate-overdenture group and 1.8 mm in the immediate complete-denture group. In the posterior parts of the mandible, the bone reductions were, respectively, 0.7 mm and 1.9 mm. The differences were statistically significant in all measured regions. During the second year, no significant differences in bone reduction were found. The sums of differences in the first two years were significant in all regions except the molar region, preserving the initial difference. Retention of roots of canines beneath a mandibular denture in immediate denture patients, even when they were in poor condition, reduced the collapse of the alveolar processes in all regions of the mandible.

Alveolar Bone Loss↗
PubMed1994

Within-subject comparisons of implant-supported mandibular prostheses: psychometric evaluation.

In a within-subject cross-over clinical trial, psychometric and functional measurements were taken while 15 completely edentulous subjects wore mandibular fixed prostheses and long-bar removable implant-supported prostheses. In this paper, the results of a psychometric assessment are presented. Eight subjects first received the fixed bridge and seven the removable type. After having worn a prosthesis for a minimum of two months, subjects responded to psychometric scales that measured their perceptions of various factors associated with prostheses. They also chewed test foods while masticatory activity was recorded. The prostheses were then changed and the procedures repeated. At the end of the study, patients were asked to choose the prosthesis that they wished to keep. Patients assigned significantly higher scores, on visual analogue scales, to both types of implant-supported prostheses than to their original conventional prostheses for all factors tested, including general satisfaction. However, no statistically significant differences between the two implant-supported prostheses were detected except for the difficulty of chewing carrot, apple, and sausage. For these foods, the fixed prostheses were rated higher. Subjects' responses to category scales were consistent with their responses to the visual analogue scales. These results suggest that, although patients find the fixed bridge to be significantly better for chewing harder foods, there is no difference in their general satisfaction with the two types of prostheses.

Adaptation, Psychological↗
PubMed1994

Within-subject comparisons of implant-supported mandibular prostheses: choice of prosthesis.

Although previous studies have demonstrated that implant-supported prostheses are more satisfactory and efficient for edentulous patients than are conventional prostheses, until now no investigation has directly compared different types of implant-supported prostheses. We carried out a within-subject cross-over clinical trial with fixed and long-bar removable implant-supported mandibular prostheses. Fifteen subjects were randomly divided into two groups. One group received the fixed prosthesis first, while the other first received the removable. After a two-month adaptation period, psychometric measurements of various aspects of the prostheses and physiological tests of masticatory efficiency were carried out. The prostheses were then changed, and the procedures repeated. At the end of the study, subjects chose the prosthesis they wished to keep. In this paper, we report on the data gathered at this last appointment. Eight subjects chose the fixed (F group), and seven chose the removable (R group). Both groups rated stability and ability to chew with the fixed as significantly better than with the removable. However, the R group rated ease of cleaning as the most important factor governing their decision, followed by esthetics and stability. The F group considered stability to be the most important factor in their decision, followed by chewing ability and ability to clean. There was a tendency for the removable to be chosen by older subjects (+50 years). These results suggest that patients choose fixed or removable implant-supported prostheses for specific reasons, and that patient attitudes should be considered when the design of a prosthesis is being planned for an individual patient.

Adaptation, Psychological↗
PubMed2000

The long-term management of patients with tooth surface loss treated using removable appliances.

The causes of tooth surface loss are multi-factorial and hence can be difficult to eradicate. This paper identifies the problems that may be anticipated during the long-term management of patients where tooth surface loss has been treated using removable appliances, where the number of teeth is often reduced. Wear and tear are inevitable and patients should therefore be made fully aware of the possibility of the gradual deterioration and failure of restorative work. Treatments should be planned, which would enable the dentist to recover the situation, with minimal inconvenience to the patient.

Dental Restoration, Permanent↗
PubMed2002

Restorative management of the worn dentition: 4. Generalized toothwear.

This is the final paper of a four part series on the management of worn dentition. The factors affecting the selection of restorative techniques for generalized toothwear, such as pulpal vitality, jaw relationship and occlusal guidance are discussed. The practical steps of oral rehabilitation using fixed prostheses are illustrated with two clinical cases.

Aged↗
PubMed2003

Tooth-supported stud-retained prostheses: three case reports.

The use of teeth as overdenture abutments is a common form of treatment. However, most roots are used only fur support. Simple stud precision attachments will also aid the retention of the prosthesis. This article presents three different cases where studs have been used to help retain removable prostheses.

Dental Abutments↗
PubMed1978

Prosthodontic therapy for cleidocranial dysostosis: report of case.

Objectives of treatment of the oral manifestations of cleidocranial dysostosis should include restoring the vertical dimension of occlusion, building out the maxilla, establishing of functional occlusion, improving appearance and phonation, and improving the patient's mental well-being.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1987

Periodontal considerations for overdentures.

Overdentures can offer an alternative to regular dentures with the correct factors. This paper discusses proper abutment selection and preparation coupled with appropriate periodontal maintenance and caries control to assure the success of overdentures.

Dental Abutments↗
PubMed1990

Implant prosthodontics contribute to restorative dentistry.

This paper is directed toward dental practitioners who accomplish the prosthodontic procedures for dental implants. It includes a discussion of most of the major steps in current implant dentistry. Several implant systems are compared with a look at the future of implant prosthodontics.

Dental Implantation, Endosseous↗
PubMed1998

Use of new magnetic attachments for implant-supported overdentures.

A newly designed magnetic attachment system for external hexed implants with a standard abutment platform has been developed. This system has certain definite advantages over bar attachments and ball attachments, which are frequently utilized for implant-supported overdentures. Especially, it can be applied to cases with reduced vertical dimension of occlusion because the total height of the magnet and the keeper is only 2.3 mm when assembled. In addition, detrimental lateral stresses to the fixture are greatly alleviated due to very low attractive forces horizontally. Favorable clinical results using this new magnetic attachment system have been obtained, and it may be considered a useful addition to overdenture therapy using any external hexel implant with a standard abutment platform, such as the Brånemark implant system.

Aged↗
PubMed2000

Maxillary insufficiency implant and tooth-retained maxillary overdenture: a clinical case report.

The following represents a clinical case report of a maxillary insufficiency implant and tooth-retained maxillary overdenture. The case required surgical and prosthetic treatment and was successfully completed over a 2-year time. A combination of dental implant techniques were utilized to achieve form, function, comfort, and aesthetics. These techniques included ridge modification with bone grafting, endosseous root and blade form implant surgical placement, and the construction of a bar-retained overdenture on a severe hypoplastic maxilla.

Alveolar Bone Loss↗