Graftless Solutions for the Edentulous Patient by Saj Jivraj

Author:Saj Jivraj
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Springer International Publishing, Cham

(b)Adequate access for oral hygiene

(c)Minimal display of metal

(d)Retention for acrylic

(e)Adequate space for acrylic resin

(f)Adequate strength in the cantilever section

(g)Attention to cross-sectional area

When considering these parameters, there are mainly two types of framework designs to support acrylic resin teeth. One of these designs is the “minimalist” framework where acrylic is wrapped around the bar and encompasses it 360 degrees including the intaglio surface. One advantage is that it can be relined, but little is known about its longevity in terms of biomechanics. Anecdotally, numerous colleagues have experienced fractures of this type of framework. Failures may be due to excessive cantilever or inadequate bar shape and further studies need to explore these issues. The second type of framework may include I- or L-shaped bar designs to maximize rigidity. One advantage of this design is that due to the shape of the titanium framework requiring less bulk of material in any one dimension, adequate space and retention for acrylic resin can be achieved which maximizes thickness in the cantilever area. The evidence base is also lacking with this design. Although these frameworks have served many patients well, particularly in the edentulous mandible, success in the mandible does not automatically translate to success in the maxilla (Figs. 10.10–10.12).

Fig. 10.10Original characteristics of gold frameworks

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.