ABSTRACT
A procedure is described for the final impression of the severely atrophied mandible. The final impression is developed by use of open- and closed-mouth procedures. The objective is to develop a physiologic impression with maximum support of both hard and soft tissues.
Subject(s)
Dental Impression Technique , Mandible/pathology , Atrophy , Dental Impression Materials , Dental Impression Technique/instrumentation , Humans , Jaw Relation Record/instrumentation , Jaw, Edentulous/pathology , Jaw, Edentulous/physiopathology , Mandible/physiopathology , Movement , Phonetics , Rubber , Sulfides , Tongue/physiology , Vertical DimensionABSTRACT
Most of the implant literature suggests that successful dental implants are immobile and any detected mobility indicates implant failure. This study evaluated the ability of the Periotest instrument to measure implant mobility in a controlled in vitro model with a sample of 56 in vivo implants. In the in vitro portion of the study, implant model mobility was determined by an axial testing machine (0 to 5 N at 0.2 mm/minute) and the Periotest instrument. The comparison showed a high level of correlation (Pearson's r 0.984). The load that the Periotest placed on the implants during mobility measurements was approximately 5 N, depending on the compliance of the test object. The in vivo portion evaluated the range of mobility of 56 clinically successful endosseous implants. The range of mobility as determined by the Periotest instrument was -6 to +2. This range corresponds to an in vitro model displacement (5 N load) of 0.038 mm to 0.113 mm with a mean of 0.066 mm +/- 0.018 mm (SD). These data demonstrate that clinically successful implants are not immobile, but have a range of mobility.
Subject(s)
Dental Implantation, Endosseous , Dental Implants , Dental Stress Analysis/instrumentation , Osseointegration/physiology , Analysis of Variance , Dental Prosthesis Retention , Elasticity , Humans , Linear Models , Reproducibility of Results , Time Factors , TitaniumABSTRACT
Various designs have been suggested for the more frequently- occurring situations of the partially edentulous state. Obviously, a discussion of all the probabilities of design is not possible. The important factor is that basic principles are not violated. Retainer choice, rest placement, major and minor connector design, and support of the distal extension base are all critical factors. However, the fact remains that adequate time must be spent in properly diagnosing the particular case and devising a workable treatment plan. A thorough oral and radiographic examination, accurate articulated diagnostic casts, and a profile of the patient in terms of prosthetic needs and expectations must all be made. Once this picture is in order, the rather mechanical task of laying out the "nuts and bolts" of removable partial denture design can be carried out to ensure that our patients receive the full benefits of our knowledge and skills.
