Describa las estrategias de
búsqueda usadas en cada una de las Bases de datos mencionando las salidas y
los artículos seleccionados. Usted debe elegir al final de la búsqueda el
artículo que mejor responda a su pregunta de búsqueda
Se busca en pubmed con la palabra “dentureprecisionattachment” y
arroja 1745 resultados. Algunos de los papersvistos fue:
Fakhry A, Tan SC,
Heiner AD, Dehkordi-Vakil FH, Dircks HW. Methodology for measuring the in
vitro seating and unseating forces of prefabricated attachment systems used
to retain implant overdentures. J Prosthodont. 2010 Feb;19(2):87-94. Epub
2009 Nov 4.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro
investigation was to measure the forces generated during the continuous
seating and unseating of prefabricated attachment systems used to retain
implant overdentures. Materials and Methods: An experimental design
consisting of interchangeable fixture mounts, a radially indexable fixture
holder, and a materials testing systems (MTS) machine was used to measure
forces generated during the insertion and removal of spherical stud
attachments (Straumann, Inc, Waltham, WA). Three separate experiments were conducted
measuring the seating and unseating forces of a vertically aligned
patrix/matrix assembly, a 20 degrees angled patrix opposing a vertically
positioned matrix, and a vertically positioned patrix opposing a 20 degrees
angled matrix. For each patrix/matrix combination, three specimens were
tested. Measurements were continuously recorded under reproducible conditions
in the presence of artificial saliva. All specimens were subjected to 10,000
seating/unseating cycles. Statistical analysis was performed with rank
analysis of variance (ANOVA) for a group comparison (alpha= 0.05).
RESULTS: Results showed variability in the
initial insertion and removal forces among experimental groups and among
specimens within each experiment. A marked increase in the seating and
unseating forces was recorded for all specimens during the first 300 cycles,
followed by a gradual decrease in these forces. The exact p-values for the
Kruskal-Wallis test showed no significant difference between the initial and
final seating/unseating forces (p > 0.1) nor in the maximum
seating/unseating forces (p > 0.6) among the three experimental groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Spherical stud attachments
exhibited consistent seating and unseating forces over 10,000 cycles. A 20
degrees angle between the patrix and matrix had no effect on the overall
seating and unseating force values.
Luego, Se busco con Denture, Partial, Removable y
aparecieron 6597 resultados.
Preiskel HW,
Preiskel A. Precision attachments for the 21st century. Dent Update. 2009
May;36(4):221-4, 226-7.
Abstract
This paper outlines the evolution of
precision attachment applications from partial denture retention to the
implant-retained overdenture. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Understanding precision
attachments in the osseointegration era is essential to obtain optimal
treatment outcomes with the new therapeutic methods available.
Después, se
agregaron limites: Humanos, 1990 en adelante, revistas dentales, y adultos (>19)
salieron 808 resultados.
Posteriormente,
se utlizó los términos mesh, con el termino mesh “"Denture, Partial,
Removable"[Mesh]” y arrojó 5886
resultadosAl utilizar las palabras mesh"Denture, Partial,
Removable" AND "DenturePrecisionAttachment"[Mesh], arrojó 649
resultados. Todo esto sin utilizar limites.
Jones JD, Turkyilmaz I, Garcia LT. Removable partial dentures--treatment now and for the future. Tex Dent
J. 2010 Apr;127(4):365-72.
Abstract
The use of a removable partial denture (RPD)
in clinical practice remains a viable treatment modality. Various
advancements have improved the quality of a RPD, subsequently improving the
quality of life for the individuals that use them. This article describes
four removable partial denture treatment modalities that provide valuable
treatment for the partially edentulous patient. These modalities include: the
implant supported RPD, attachment use in RPDs, rotational path RPDs, and
Titanium and CAD/CAM RPDs. Data on future needs for RPDs indicate that while
there is a decline in tooth loss in the U.S., the need for RPDs will actually
increase as the population increases and ages. With the growth in the
geriatric population, which includes a high percentage of partially
edentulous patients, the use of RPDs in clinical treatment will continue to
be predictable treatment option in clinical dentistry.
Al buscar con ("Denture, Partial,
Removable"[Mesh] AND "Denture Precision Attachment"[Mesh]) NOT
"Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported"[Mesh]arroja 633 resultados.
Zitzmann NU, Rohner
U, Weiger R, Krastl G. When to choose which retention element to use for
removable dental prostheses. Int J Prosthodont. 2009 Mar-Apr;22(2):161-7.
Abstract
The aim of this article is to introduce
criteria for planning treatment with a removable dental prosthesis (RDP) in a
partially dentate arch, including the indications for placement of dental
implants. The retention of RDPs is achieved through clasps, adhesive
attachments, crowns, and fixed partial dentures with intra- or extracoronal
attachments, telescopes, root caps, and/or prefabricated interradicular
retainers. RDP designs vary from a removable partial denture to an
overdenture prosthesis. Potential abutment teeth are selected for RDP
retention according to their prognosis, their position in the arch, and the
planned prosthesis design. Retainer selection mainly depends on the remaining
tooth substance, the intra- and intermaxillary relationships, esthetics, and
financial aspects. With dental implants as additional retainers, the
supportive area for the RDP is increased, the soft tissue load is minimized,
and the extension of the base of the prosthesis can be reduced to enhance a
patient's comfort. For RDP planning, strategic considerations are needed to
determine the appropriate prosthesis design, to select the abutment teeth,
and to choose the appropriate retention element for each particular abutment.
Coye RB. Precision
attachment removable partial dentures. W V Dent J. 1993 Jul;67(1):6-14.
Abstract
Although added preparations and skill are
required to provide precision attachment removable partial dentures, more favorable
esthetics and load distribution may outweigh the disadvantages. Basic design
principles, categories (intracoronal, extracoronal, stud, bar and plunger)
and selection of precision attachments are reviewed.
Burns DR, Ward JE.
Review of attachments for removable partial denture design: 1. Classification
and selection. Int J Prosthodont. 1990 Jan-Feb;3(1):98-102.
Abstract
An attachment is a mechanical device, other
than a clasp assembly, that functions as a direct retainer. Attachments for
removable partial denture treatment are reviewed and a method for classifying
different types of attachments is provided. Attachments are categorized as
precision or semiprecision, depending upon the method of manufacture;
internal or external, according to their intracoronal or extracoronal
location relative to the abutment tooth; and rigid or resilient, as
determined by the amount of movement allowed between the component parts.
They are also classified by design. The advantages and disadvantages of
attachment use as well as indications and contraindications are considered.
Additionally, the conventional clasp-type direct retainer is compared to
attachments.
Dawson PE. A new
attachment system for removable partial dentures. Signature. 1996 Spring:1-7.
Abstract
How a removable partial denture (RPD)
attaches to its abutment teeth is the most important aspect of partial
denture design. The reason is obvious: Many critical requirements for optimal
design are dependent on the way the removable segment is related and secured
to the abutment teeth. To appreciate the importance of the attachment design,
it is necessary to understand several principles of overall RPD design.
State-of-the-art RPD design is often the most effective means for achieving
long-term maintainable health of the remaining teeth. Even weakened teeth
with compromised bone support can, with good design, often be used
effectively as abutments for RPDs while benefitting from the removable
partial.
Luego se agrega
los limites: 1990 en adelante, en adultos (>19 años), en revistas
dentales, en ingles y español, y arrojó 35 resultados.
Owall B, Jönsson L.
Precision attachment-retained removable partial dentures. Part 3. General
practitioner results up to 2 years. Int J Prosthodont. 1998
Nov-Dec;11(6):574-9.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to analyze
the techniques, production problems, and 2-year results of
attachment-retained removable partial denture (RPD) treatment provided by general
practitioners in Sweden.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: At a major dental
laboratory, consecutive cases involving new production of crowns, or of fixed
partial dentures (FPDs) and RPDs retained with precision attachments, were
studied. Parameters of the dentition, crown or FPD, type and brand of
attachment, etc, as well as early satisfaction by dentist and patient, were
recorded using specially designed forms at the dental laboratory and
questionnaires for the dentists. After 2 years, questionnaires were again
sent out to the dentists to record complications and patients' and dentists'
opinions of the results. The sample gathered totaled 83 constructions. After
2 years, responses for 57 patients, all of whom had distal-extension RPDs,
were received. Most drop-outs in the study were explicable.
RESULTS: The most frequently cited reasons
for using attachments were esthetics and need for crowning the teeth abutting
the RPD. McCollum rigid slide attachment was the predominant brand used (43%
of constructions). Dentists and patients were dissatisfied with 6% of the
constructions. During the first 2 years, 22 of 57 constructions were
complication-free. Seventeen had attachment complications and 9 had serious
complications related to the abutment teeth or RPDs. A comparison between
these 2 groups revealed that those with complications had every second
abutment root-canal treated and a root post, while the group without
complications had every fifth abutment root-canal treated.
CONCLUSION: There were many technical and
biotechnical complications and failures; the exact ratio, however, depended
on the definition of "complications" and "failure." The
2-year results also deviated considerably from the dentists' opinions of the
early results.
Owall B. Precision
attachment-retained removable partial dentures: Part 2. Long-term study of
ball attachments. Int J Prosthodont. 1995 Jan-Feb;8(1):21-8.
Abstract
Patients provided with 24 ball
attachment-retained removable partial dentures were followed up to 23.5
years. The prosthetic treatment included fixed partial dentures in 8 arches,
and combinations of crowns and splint bars in 16 arches. All ball attachment
matrices were supplied with vertical occlusal stops in contact with the
patrices. A nonresilient hinged coupling was established between fixed
partial dentures and removable partial dentures. Seventeen arches had only
two or three remaining teeth. A total of 66 abutments for fixed partial
dentures were included, 30 of which were root canal treated and supplied with
posts. No technical failures (loss of retention/cement failure, root or tooth
fracture, metal framework fracture) with the fixed partial dentures were
recorded. With the removable partial dentures, additional retention with
clasps was introduced in 2 of the dentures (in addition to 8 originally), 2
had to be remade after fractures, and 4 dentures were relined.
Mensor MC. Removable
partial overdentures with mechanical (precision) attachments. Dent Clin North
Am. 1990 Oct;34(4):669-81.
Abstract
Mechanical attachments for overdentures have
been available in various forms for over a century. The explosive interest in
osseointegration and the effort on the part of the profession to avoid the
complete denture as a treatment modality has stirred the interest in positive
retentive elements for overdentures represented by the mechanical stud and
bar attachments. The cited references provide a resource as a trouble-free
guide in the selection and use of the various stud and bar attachment
systems. The clinical examples show a pattern of application not generally
discussed by the manufacturers, illustrating the simplicity of use with the
options for all attachments including magnets. The discussion on magnets
comes from 9 years of clinical experience. Rare earth magnets provide
excellent adjunct retention, and their assembly follows the same protocol and
complexity as stud attachment systems. All magnets, at the present state of
the art, have a corrosion potential with the exception of the Laser Sealed
Units (Golden Dental, Golden, CO). Finally, the mechanics of the attachment
overdenture serves as an excellent training field for the osseointegrated
prosthesis, be it the classic Brånemark (Nobelpharma USA, Chicago, IL)
restorative or the implant overdenture concept.
·
Dentro de los papers revisados anteriormente
el paper que mas se acomoda es:
Zitzmann NU, Rohner
U, Weiger R, Krastl G. When to choose which retention element to use for
removable dental prostheses. Int J Prosthodont. 2009
Mar-Apr;22(2):161-7.
Abstract
The aim of this article is to introduce
criteria for planning treatment with a removable dental prosthesis (RDP) in a
partially dentate arch, including the indications for placement of dental
implants. The retention of RDPs is achieved through clasps, adhesive
attachments, crowns, and fixed partial dentures with intra- or extracoronal
attachments, telescopes, root caps, and/or prefabricated interradicular
retainers. RDP designs vary from a removable partial denture to an
overdenture prosthesis. Potential abutment teeth are selected for RDP retention
according to their prognosis, their position in the arch, and the planned
prosthesis design. Retainer selection mainly depends on the remaining tooth
substance, the intra- and intermaxillary relationships, esthetics, and
financial aspects. With dental implants as additional retainers, the
supportive area for the RDP is increased, the soft tissue load is minimized,
and the extension of the base of the prosthesis can be reduced to enhance a
patient's comfort. For RDP planning, strategic considerations are needed to
determine the appropriate prosthesis design, to select the abutment teeth,
and to choose the appropriate retention element for each particular abutment.
Demasiado extensa la busqueda Nicole, hay que acotarla mas, buscar en clinical queries o con buenos limites en la base de pubmed
Tu pregunta tampoco esta muy bien planteada, qué es lo que verdaderamente quieres saber de los attaches intracoronarios?, no es la relacion con la retencion de la protesis pues sabemos que la retiene, tal vez quieras saber el exito o la eficacia repecto a un control que es un retenedor extracoronario y la eficacia medida en algunas variables intermedias que puedes desglosar y mirarlas de a una, por ejemplo biomecanicamente grado de retencion, estetica, durabilidad de las piezas pilares, sobrevida de la protesis.
Dra Torres
|
Tipo de pregunta/Problema: 
En relación al planteamiento de la pregunta PICOT, faltó colocar la comparación (quizás podría ser pacientes con prótesis parcial removible pero sin attaches intracoronarios). Además en la parte de resultados, dice que deseas saber si mejora la retención de la prótesis parcial removible, pero luego en la formulación de la pregunta no lo colocaste, ya que preguntas por los requisitos para indicar attaches intracoronarios.
ResponderEliminarUna sugerencia respecto a como hubiese planteado yo la pregunta sería:
En pacientes desdentados parciales mandibulares que van a recibir una prótesis parcial removible, ¿es conveniente indicar attaches intracoronarios vs no usarlos, con el fin de lograr mayor retención de la prótesis?