Success and complications of implant-retained prostheses provided by the Post-Doctoral Prosthodontics Program, University of Puerto Rico: A cross-sectional study (original) (raw)
2015, The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Related papers
Prosthodontic complications in dental implant therapy
2008
Implant therapy is popular in dental practice. However, prosthetic complications in implant-supported prostheses are common. Although most of the problems can be prevented by careful case selection and treatment planning, failures do occur and their management can sometimes be very demanding. This article discusses the common prosthodontic problems encountered during and after implant therapy. Special emphasis is placed on how to avoid and solve the late mechanical complications of implant-supported prostheses.
The International journal of prosthodontics
This systematic review aimed to identify different prosthodontic outcomes between screw- and cement-retained implant prostheses. The relevant articles were retrieved from the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed (using medical subject headings), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). The search was performed up to December 31, 2013, and was restricted to studies on human subjects reported in English. A further search was conducted through the reference lists of the articles found as well as from early online articles. Reviewed studies were those on fixed implant prostheses using different retention mechanisms such as screws or cement. Information on types of screws and mechanisms of preloading, as well as different luting cements, was collected in correlation with prosthodontic maintenance/complication issues seen in the clinical studies. Sixty-two papers met the review criteria. There were only six randomized controlled trials and none ...
The Saudi Dental Journal, 2018
with Ball and Socket 48% (n = 63) to be the most common attachment. DT regarded poor implant location/orientation 38% (n = 49) and inaccuracies in impression/bite-registration 40% (n = 52) as the obstacles to success. Half 50% (n = 65) of the repairs were for facing damage/chipping of ceramic. Fracture of the denture base/tooth detachment 50% (n = 65) was common with implant over dentures. Conclusions: DT played a role and took decisions regarding the DIP. Frequent problems found by DT were poor implant location, discrepancies in impression/bite-registration, facing damage/ chipping and damage/fracture of the denture base/prosthetic teeth. The frequency of these complications can be minimized by an increase in the prosthetic knowledge of the dentists and establishing clear protocols for communication between the dentist and the DT.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.