• Users Online: 1101
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents  
CASE REPORT NON-COMPETITION
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 18  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 50

CRNC12: Maxilla reconstruction with 12 telescopic fixed dental prosthesis


Date of Web Publication31-Oct-2018

Correspondence Address:
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0972-4052.244583

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
. CRNC12: Maxilla reconstruction with 12 telescopic fixed dental prosthesis. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2018;18, Suppl S1:50

How to cite this URL:
. CRNC12: Maxilla reconstruction with 12 telescopic fixed dental prosthesis. J Indian Prosthodont Soc [serial online] 2018 [cited 2018 Nov 20];18, Suppl S1:50. Available from: http://www.j-ips.org/text.asp?2018/18/5/50/244583



Shu-You Lin, Dai Yu Liou, Hsi-Kuei Lin

Prosthodontic Department, Taipei Medical University-Shuang-Ho Hospital, New Taipei City, Taiwan

Introduction: Patient came to the outpatient department with 16 to 26 provisional fixed dental prosthesis (FDP). Due to past unpleasant dental experience, patient denied traditional FDP and traditional RDP for rehabilitation. He mentioned the information about telescopic restoration which he found on the internet. After evaluation of the residual tooth structure and periodontal status of the existing abutment teeth, the idea of telescopic prosthesis was accepted.

Case description: A 52-year-old patient asked for full mouth rehabilitation. Clinical finding as follows: ①21 22 23 residual root ②Upper and lower partial edentulism ③Class II jaw relationship. After completion of the 12 unit telescopic FDP of the maxilla, he was satisfied with the chewing function and appearance. He could unwear the denture and clean the prosthesis which was very important for him, since he was concerned about further tooth decay or periodontal inflammation.

Discussion: After three months, he came back and told us that the prosthesis was broken because it fell down on the floor during cleaning. The clinical examination showed that the metal substructure could not be fitted in due to the distortion. Because he was reluctant to remove the inner crown, we faced the problem of fabricating a precise FDP that could be fitted into mouth. Eventually, we used provisional CAD / CAM PMMA to fabricate the 12 unit outer crown. Finally he was satisfied with the new prosthesis again including chewing function and esthetic.

Conclusion: This technique can help patient satisfied the second prosthesis although the material is provisional CAD/CAM PMMA.






 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed33    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded14    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]