Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download
ePaper created 2018-02-22, 10:39:24 | version 1.38.0
26 ◊Page 25 RESTORATIVE Dental Tribune Middle East & Africa Edition | 2/2017 Figure 25: Fully adjustable articulator left-view Figure 26: Metal try-ins Figure 27: Full arch restorations on the articulator Figure 28: Lower arch restorations on the articulator Figure 29: Balancing side contacts in R-lateral movements Figure 30: Working side contacts in R-lateral movements Figure 31: Balancing side contacts in L-lateral movements Figure 32: Working side contacts in L-lateral movements bridge treatment group” was divided into three subgroups: Group IIa: 21 bridges of cross-arch ex- tension with abutment teeth present at the distal termination of the bridg- es. In this bridgework, the number of pontics between two neighboring abutments ranged from one to eight. Group IIb: 39 bridges of cross-arch extension with distal cantilever seg- ments in one or both sides of the jaw. In this bridgework, the mean num- ber of free-end pontics per cantilever segment was 2.3 (range 1-7). Group IIc: 14 bridges of unilateral ex- tension. Success Rates The overall success rates for this very extreme style of bridgework was over 92% success after the eight years of the study. The analysis of the total material (332 bridges in 251 patients) regarding fre- quency of and reasons for technical failures which were encountered in the various bridgework after place- ment, gave the following result: 1. Loss of retention of retainer crowns from abutment teeth (11 bridges, 3.3%). This failure occurred in six bridges of cross-arch extension with distal abutment teeth present, and in five bridges of cross-arch extension with distal cantilever segments. 2. Fracture of bridgework (seven bridges, 2.1%). Such fractures were noted in one bridge of unilateral extension, in three bridges of cross- arch extension with distal abutment teeth, and in three bridges of cross- arch extension involving cantilever units. 3. Fracture of abutment teeth (one tooth in each of eight bridges, 2.4%) occurred in three bridges of cross- arch extension with distal abutment teeth present and in five cross-arch bridges with cantilever segments. Four of these fractures occurred in the abutment tooth adjoining free- end units. Of a total of eight frac- tured teeth, six were nonvital but root-filled, and two were vital. Conclusions The results showed that following a combined prosthetic / periodon- tal treatment, periodontal health can be maintained in patients en- rolled in a controlled oral hygiene program. The type of maintenance care exercised in the present study was equally effective in patients for whom fixed bridgework was part of the initial treatment. Severe reduc- tion of periodontal support around the abutment teeth and differences in design of the bridgework did not influence the periodontal status or longevity of the bridgework during the observation period. However, failures of technical nature occurred ÿPage 27