First permanent molar (6 years molar) edentation: Classic prosthetic rehabilitation versus implant supported prosthetic rehabilitation (preliminary study)
Introduction. Prosthetic restoration of single tooth edentation produced by the loss of the permanent first molar (6-year molar), regardless of its location (maxillary or mandibular), represents a challenge for any dentist. Purpose. In this study we tried to present some theoretical and practical a...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Amaltea Medical Publishing House
2020-03-01
|
| Series: | Romanian Journal of Medical Practice |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://rjmp.com.ro/articles/2020.1/RJMP_2020_1_Art-12.pdf |
| _version_ | 1818689683879624704 |
|---|---|
| author | Sorin Nicolae POPESCU Gabriela TANASE Gabriel CIOCHINDA Augustin MIHAI Viorel Stefan PERIEANU Ruxandra STANESCU Iuliana BABIUC Radu COSTEA Simion Gh. DUMITRU Oana-Cella ANDREI Luminita OANCEA Mirel TOMA Mihai BURLIBASA Corina Marilena CRISTACHE Irina Adriana BEURAN Ileana IONESCU |
| author_facet | Sorin Nicolae POPESCU Gabriela TANASE Gabriel CIOCHINDA Augustin MIHAI Viorel Stefan PERIEANU Ruxandra STANESCU Iuliana BABIUC Radu COSTEA Simion Gh. DUMITRU Oana-Cella ANDREI Luminita OANCEA Mirel TOMA Mihai BURLIBASA Corina Marilena CRISTACHE Irina Adriana BEURAN Ileana IONESCU |
| author_sort | Sorin Nicolae POPESCU |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Introduction. Prosthetic restoration of single tooth edentation produced by the loss of the permanent first molar (6-year molar), regardless of its location (maxillary or mandibular), represents a challenge for any dentist.
Purpose. In this study we tried to present some theoretical and practical aspects regarding the advantages of implant-prosthetic rehabilitation, regarding the advantages of implant-prosthetic rehabilitation compared to the classic prosthetic rehabilitation, for the restoration of the 6-year molar single tooth edentation, taking into account both the opinions of the dentists and the preferences of the patients.
Material and method. The study was conducted between April 15 and June 30, 2018 on a group of 39 dentists, based on a questionnaire with 8 questions.
Results and discussion. The results obtained from the analysis of the answers given to the 8 questions, have been exposed in a varied iconography for easier understanding.
Conclusion. The most important aspect of this study is that most practitioners have recommended fixed prosthetic restorations on implant support, because of their superior advantages, compared with fixed prosthetic restorations with aggregation on the teeth bordering the edentulous breach. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-17T12:14:01Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-8a0e17e792b8455babab1ffbe8bb1c20 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1842-8258 2069-6108 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-17T12:14:01Z |
| publishDate | 2020-03-01 |
| publisher | Amaltea Medical Publishing House |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Romanian Journal of Medical Practice |
| spelling | doaj.art-8a0e17e792b8455babab1ffbe8bb1c202022-12-21T21:49:16ZengAmaltea Medical Publishing HouseRomanian Journal of Medical Practice1842-82582069-61082020-03-01151606510.37897/RJMP.2020.1.12First permanent molar (6 years molar) edentation: Classic prosthetic rehabilitation versus implant supported prosthetic rehabilitation (preliminary study)Sorin Nicolae POPESCU0Gabriela TANASE1Gabriel CIOCHINDA2Augustin MIHAI3Viorel Stefan PERIEANU4Ruxandra STANESCU5Iuliana BABIUC6Radu COSTEA7Simion Gh. DUMITRU8Oana-Cella ANDREI9Luminita OANCEA10Mirel TOMA11Mihai BURLIBASA12Corina Marilena CRISTACHE13Irina Adriana BEURAN14Ileana IONESCU15„Carol Davila“ University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania„Carol Davila“ University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania„Carol Davila“ University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania„Carol Davila“ University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania„Carol Davila“ University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania„Carol Davila“ University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania„Carol Davila“ University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania„Carol Davila“ University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, RomaniaPrivate dental practice, Bucharest, Romania„Carol Davila“ University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania„Carol Davila“ University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania„Carol Davila“ University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania„Carol Davila“ University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, RomaniaPrivate dental practice, Bucharest, Romania„Carol Davila“ University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania„Carol Davila“ University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, RomaniaIntroduction. Prosthetic restoration of single tooth edentation produced by the loss of the permanent first molar (6-year molar), regardless of its location (maxillary or mandibular), represents a challenge for any dentist. Purpose. In this study we tried to present some theoretical and practical aspects regarding the advantages of implant-prosthetic rehabilitation, regarding the advantages of implant-prosthetic rehabilitation compared to the classic prosthetic rehabilitation, for the restoration of the 6-year molar single tooth edentation, taking into account both the opinions of the dentists and the preferences of the patients. Material and method. The study was conducted between April 15 and June 30, 2018 on a group of 39 dentists, based on a questionnaire with 8 questions. Results and discussion. The results obtained from the analysis of the answers given to the 8 questions, have been exposed in a varied iconography for easier understanding. Conclusion. The most important aspect of this study is that most practitioners have recommended fixed prosthetic restorations on implant support, because of their superior advantages, compared with fixed prosthetic restorations with aggregation on the teeth bordering the edentulous breach.https://rjmp.com.ro/articles/2020.1/RJMP_2020_1_Art-12.pdfimplant supported fixed prosthetic rehabilitation6-year molar single tooth edentation |
| spellingShingle | Sorin Nicolae POPESCU Gabriela TANASE Gabriel CIOCHINDA Augustin MIHAI Viorel Stefan PERIEANU Ruxandra STANESCU Iuliana BABIUC Radu COSTEA Simion Gh. DUMITRU Oana-Cella ANDREI Luminita OANCEA Mirel TOMA Mihai BURLIBASA Corina Marilena CRISTACHE Irina Adriana BEURAN Ileana IONESCU First permanent molar (6 years molar) edentation: Classic prosthetic rehabilitation versus implant supported prosthetic rehabilitation (preliminary study) Romanian Journal of Medical Practice implant supported fixed prosthetic rehabilitation 6-year molar single tooth edentation |
| title | First permanent molar (6 years molar) edentation: Classic prosthetic rehabilitation versus implant supported prosthetic rehabilitation (preliminary study) |
| title_full | First permanent molar (6 years molar) edentation: Classic prosthetic rehabilitation versus implant supported prosthetic rehabilitation (preliminary study) |
| title_fullStr | First permanent molar (6 years molar) edentation: Classic prosthetic rehabilitation versus implant supported prosthetic rehabilitation (preliminary study) |
| title_full_unstemmed | First permanent molar (6 years molar) edentation: Classic prosthetic rehabilitation versus implant supported prosthetic rehabilitation (preliminary study) |
| title_short | First permanent molar (6 years molar) edentation: Classic prosthetic rehabilitation versus implant supported prosthetic rehabilitation (preliminary study) |
| title_sort | first permanent molar 6 years molar edentation classic prosthetic rehabilitation versus implant supported prosthetic rehabilitation preliminary study |
| topic | implant supported fixed prosthetic rehabilitation 6-year molar single tooth edentation |
| url | https://rjmp.com.ro/articles/2020.1/RJMP_2020_1_Art-12.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT sorinnicolaepopescu firstpermanentmolar6yearsmolaredentationclassicprostheticrehabilitationversusimplantsupportedprostheticrehabilitationpreliminarystudy AT gabrielatanase firstpermanentmolar6yearsmolaredentationclassicprostheticrehabilitationversusimplantsupportedprostheticrehabilitationpreliminarystudy AT gabrielciochinda firstpermanentmolar6yearsmolaredentationclassicprostheticrehabilitationversusimplantsupportedprostheticrehabilitationpreliminarystudy AT augustinmihai firstpermanentmolar6yearsmolaredentationclassicprostheticrehabilitationversusimplantsupportedprostheticrehabilitationpreliminarystudy AT viorelstefanperieanu firstpermanentmolar6yearsmolaredentationclassicprostheticrehabilitationversusimplantsupportedprostheticrehabilitationpreliminarystudy AT ruxandrastanescu firstpermanentmolar6yearsmolaredentationclassicprostheticrehabilitationversusimplantsupportedprostheticrehabilitationpreliminarystudy AT iulianababiuc firstpermanentmolar6yearsmolaredentationclassicprostheticrehabilitationversusimplantsupportedprostheticrehabilitationpreliminarystudy AT raducostea firstpermanentmolar6yearsmolaredentationclassicprostheticrehabilitationversusimplantsupportedprostheticrehabilitationpreliminarystudy AT simionghdumitru firstpermanentmolar6yearsmolaredentationclassicprostheticrehabilitationversusimplantsupportedprostheticrehabilitationpreliminarystudy AT oanacellaandrei firstpermanentmolar6yearsmolaredentationclassicprostheticrehabilitationversusimplantsupportedprostheticrehabilitationpreliminarystudy AT luminitaoancea firstpermanentmolar6yearsmolaredentationclassicprostheticrehabilitationversusimplantsupportedprostheticrehabilitationpreliminarystudy AT mireltoma firstpermanentmolar6yearsmolaredentationclassicprostheticrehabilitationversusimplantsupportedprostheticrehabilitationpreliminarystudy AT mihaiburlibasa firstpermanentmolar6yearsmolaredentationclassicprostheticrehabilitationversusimplantsupportedprostheticrehabilitationpreliminarystudy AT corinamarilenacristache firstpermanentmolar6yearsmolaredentationclassicprostheticrehabilitationversusimplantsupportedprostheticrehabilitationpreliminarystudy AT irinaadrianabeuran firstpermanentmolar6yearsmolaredentationclassicprostheticrehabilitationversusimplantsupportedprostheticrehabilitationpreliminarystudy AT ileanaionescu firstpermanentmolar6yearsmolaredentationclassicprostheticrehabilitationversusimplantsupportedprostheticrehabilitationpreliminarystudy |