Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Mandibular Prosthesis”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

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

At least 163 records · Page 9Linked to original sources
PubMed1985

[Reconstruction of the temporomandibular joint with a total intermediate prosthesis].

A method for reconstruction of temporomandibular joint is proposed using an intermediary prosthesis and non-sealed cupula. This prosthesis respects the cranial articular slope and provides twofold mobility at the cupular level, which approaches physiological conditions and allows reproduction of buccal opening and closing movements as well as lateralization. A strict surgical procedure is essential when inserting the prosthesis, particular care being necessary in the approach to the facial nerve and control of its temporofacial contingent until above the zygomatic arch. Indications for this procedure are discussed in relation to injuries and tumoral, degenerative and malformatory lesions.

Ankylosis↗
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↗
PubMed2002

Finite element stress analysis of the effect of short implant usage in place of cantilever extensions in mandibular posterior edentulism.

Although the destructive effect of cantilevered implant supported fixed partial prosthesis is well known, in some cases usage of cantilever extension seems to be inevitable for many clinicians. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of additional placement of a shorter implant in place of a cantilever extension on stress distribution compared with cantilevered fixed prosthesis in mandibular posterior edentulism. A mandibular Kennedy II finite element model was constructed. Six different implant supported fixed partial prosthesis were designed according to two main configurations; anterior and posterior cantilever extensions compared with the placement of additional shorter implant configurations. An oblique occlusal load of 400 N was applied. Tensile and compressive stress values in the cortical bone surrounding the cervical regions of implants and Von Misses stress values in the implants were evaluated. Significant lower stress values were recorded at the shorter implant placement configurations compared with the cantilevered prosthesis. Posterior cantilever extension performed higher stress values than the anterior counterpart. In clinical applications where cantilevered fixed partial prosthesis seems to be inevitable because of anatomical restrictions and/or complications such as loss of implant, an additional placement of a shorter implant should be considered.

Compressive Strength↗
PubMed2000

[Mandibular atrophy and a screw-retained implant-supported prosthesis].

Prosthetic care for mandibular atrophy has raised many difficult problems, particularly in the most severe cases. The solution to most of these problems lies in the use of osteointegrated implants. Good results were obtained by using a small number of implants associated with adjustable overdenture prostheses or, alternatively, by using a larger number of implants (5 or 6) associated with a screw fixed prosthesis with posterior cantilever. Cantilever prostheses can provide support for the mental foramen zones and the posterior zones of the mandibular body where bone resorption is important after application of adjustable plates to the fibromucosa.

Aged↗
PubMed1984

Mandibular reconstruction using the Dacron-urethane prosthesis and autogenic cancellous bone: review of 32 cases.

The prosthesis and cancellous bone graft technique has proven to be versatile, reliable, and highly successful when applied to mandibular reconstruction. The type of prosthesis used appears to be of some importance. Analysis of 32 cases in which the Dacron-urethane mandibular prosthesis was used is presented. Among these cases there were one failure (3 percent) and three minor complications (9 percent). These results are superior to those reported in the series in which metallic prostheses were used.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1977

Mandibular staple bone plate implant and prosthesis. Report of a case.

A case treated by the mandibular staple implant fastener system and prosthesis is presented. The phases of therapy, involving preprosthetic surgical preparation, construction of conventional dentures, implantation of the orthopedic appliance, preparation of an interim postsurgical prosthesis, and construction of the definitive prosthesis, are described and illustrated.

Atrophy↗
PubMed2003

Split-frame implant prosthesis designed to compensate for mandibular flexure: a clinical report.

When an edentulous mandible is restored with 4 or more implants connected by a metal bar and retained with screws, mandibular flexure may cause screw loosening and unnecessary stresses and strains on the prosthesis and implants. Separating the prosthesis at the midline can relieve these stresses and strains. This article describes the separation of a hybrid mandibular denture at the midline.

Dental Alloys↗
PubMed1991

[Prosthesis in mandibulectomized patients].

The most frequent options currently available for rehabilitation of patients requiring mandibular resection, are discussed. Accordingly, prostheses are designed depending on the surgical technique employed. The most common characteristics of the oral cavity are reviewed, as well as their involvement in mandibulectomized patients. Finally, the relationship that should exist between maxillofacial prostheses and the stomatological cares required by patients who are candidates for radio and/or chemotherapy is stressed.

Dental Implants↗
PubMed1997

A within-subject comparison of mandibular long-bar and hybrid implant-supported prostheses: psychometric evaluation and patient preference.

Although it has been shown that patients are more satisfied with prostheses supported by implants than with conventional dentures, there have been few direct comparisons of the various designs of implant-supported prostheses. This within-subject crossover clinical trial was designed to compare two forms of removable prostheses which are frequently prescribed for the edentulous mandible: a long-bar overdenture supported by 4 implants and a two-implant hybrid overdenture. Sixteen completely edentulous subjects were given a new maxillary conventional denture: Ten of them received the mandibular long-bar prosthesis first and six the hybrid. After a two-month adaptation period, psychometric measures of various aspects of the prostheses and physiological tests of masticatory efficiency were carried out over three weeks. The mandibular prostheses were then changed and the procedures repeated. At the end of the study, subjects were asked to choose the mandibular prosthesis that they wished to keep, and final psychometric measures were taken. In this paper, the results of the psychometric assessment and patient preference are presented. Subjects assessed factors such as general satisfaction, quality of life, stability, retention, comfort, esthetics, ease of cleaning, speaking, and chewing, and how well-chewed foods were before being swallowed. Most of the factors except ease of cleaning and speaking were rated significantly better with long-bar overdentures than with hybrid ones. These results are consistent with the fact that all subjects chose long-bar overdentures, reporting stability, ease of chewing, and comfort as the most important factors influencing their choice. These results suggest that, although subjects assign high ratings for most factors to hybrid overdentures, they find long-bar overdentures to be significantly more stable, comfortable, and easier for chewing.

Adult↗