Home  About us  Contact
 

Occlusal Schemes (occlusal + scheme)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Medical Sciences100%

Selected Abstracts

Patients' Evaluation of Two Occlusal Schemes for Implant Overdentures

CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, Issue 3 2008
BHealSc, John M. Aarts BEd, MhealSc, PGDipCDTech
ABSTRACT Background: There is an absence of conclusive evidence for occlusal schemes in implant overdentures. Purpose: To investigate the consequences of two different occlusal schemes on levels of satisfaction for patients wearing implant overdentures. Materials and Methods: Within an existing randomized controlled clinical trial, a physiologic occlusal scheme was compared with a lingualized occlusal scheme for 18 selected participants all with implant overdentures. Nine participants had conventional maxillary complete dentures opposing mandibular 2-implant overdentures; a further nine participants had maxillary 3-implant overdentures opposing mandibular 2-implant overdentures. All participants recruited had been wearing their original prostheses for 3 years with a bilateral balance occlusal scheme. The participants' existing satisfaction levels, as a baseline, were determined using visual analogue scale questionnaires. They were followed by similar assessments of two further occlusal schemes using 2-month assessment periods. On completion of the study, the participants selected their preferred occlusal scheme and semiformal interviews were conducted to assess the rationale for their choices. Results: Baseline data showed all the participants had pre-existing high satisfaction levels. Thereafter, of those participants that received lingualized occlusion first, 55.6% reported that the physiologic occlusion was better than lingualized occlusion. For those participants who received the physiologic occlusion first, 85.7% reported that physiologic occlusion was better than lingualized occlusion. On completion of the study, 64.7% of the participants preferred the physiologic occlusion, 35.3% preferred the lingualized occlusion. However, when the two groups' satisfaction scores were modeled using the three main key indicator questions (general satisfaction, general ability to chew, or general function), there were no significant differences between them. Conclusions: Within the limitations of a small number of participants, the majority of them still indicated a preference for a physiologic occlusion for implant overdentures. Improved function was given as the main indicator for that preference. Having implant overdentures in one or both jaws is not a formative factor in patient's opinions on occlusal schemes. [source]

Dynesthetic and Dentogenic Concept Revisited

JOURNAL OF ESTHETIC AND RESTORATIVE DENTISTRY, Issue 3 2002
WILLIAM S. JAMESON BS
ABSTRACT: The dynesthetic and dentogenic concept, when applied, provides a more natural, harmonious prosthesis, which not only is desired by patients, but also is a quality of care they deserve. Outstanding esthetics can be achieved by simple guidelines, using tooth molds specifically sculpted for males and females, arranging prosthetic teeth to correspond with personality and age and sculpting the matrix (visible denture base) with more natural contours. There is no reason for edentulous individuals to be provided with care of any less quality than that available with other procedures, such as crowns, bridges, veneers, or implant restorations. Providing this upscale product can be rewarding and satisfying to patient and operator alike. This concept produces superior results no matter what posterior occlusal scheme is employed but, in the opinion of the author, works best when used in conjunction with a noninterceptive linear occlusion approach (not to be confused with lingualized occlusion), which precludes anterior contact. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Dentogenics provides an approach to esthetics in prosthodontics that enables the dentist to create a restoration in harmony with the patient's objective personality. This concept considers gender, I age, and personality to restore the patient's dignity and unique individuality that has been missing in far too many prostheses. [source]

Patients' Evaluation of Two Occlusal Schemes for Implant Overdentures

CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, Issue 3 2008
BHealSc, John M. Aarts BEd, MhealSc, PGDipCDTech
ABSTRACT Background: There is an absence of conclusive evidence for occlusal schemes in implant overdentures. Purpose: To investigate the consequences of two different occlusal schemes on levels of satisfaction for patients wearing implant overdentures. Materials and Methods: Within an existing randomized controlled clinical trial, a physiologic occlusal scheme was compared with a lingualized occlusal scheme for 18 selected participants all with implant overdentures. Nine participants had conventional maxillary complete dentures opposing mandibular 2-implant overdentures; a further nine participants had maxillary 3-implant overdentures opposing mandibular 2-implant overdentures. All participants recruited had been wearing their original prostheses for 3 years with a bilateral balance occlusal scheme. The participants' existing satisfaction levels, as a baseline, were determined using visual analogue scale questionnaires. They were followed by similar assessments of two further occlusal schemes using 2-month assessment periods. On completion of the study, the participants selected their preferred occlusal scheme and semiformal interviews were conducted to assess the rationale for their choices. Results: Baseline data showed all the participants had pre-existing high satisfaction levels. Thereafter, of those participants that received lingualized occlusion first, 55.6% reported that the physiologic occlusion was better than lingualized occlusion. For those participants who received the physiologic occlusion first, 85.7% reported that physiologic occlusion was better than lingualized occlusion. On completion of the study, 64.7% of the participants preferred the physiologic occlusion, 35.3% preferred the lingualized occlusion. However, when the two groups' satisfaction scores were modeled using the three main key indicator questions (general satisfaction, general ability to chew, or general function), there were no significant differences between them. Conclusions: Within the limitations of a small number of participants, the majority of them still indicated a preference for a physiologic occlusion for implant overdentures. Improved function was given as the main indicator for that preference. Having implant overdentures in one or both jaws is not a formative factor in patient's opinions on occlusal schemes. [source]

The relationship between non-working-side occlusal contacts and mandibular position

JOURNAL OF ORAL REHABILITATION, Issue 10 2001
T. Ogawa
No clear description can be found regarding the lateral position when examining non-working-side occlusal contacts. The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that the non-working-side contact pattern varies with the mandibular position. The characteristics of the non-working-side contact pattern were also determined relative to the working-side contact pattern. Occlusal contacts of 86 young adults were examined using shim stock in standardized lateral positions: 0·5, 1, 2 and 3 mm from the maximum intercuspation (MI), where the 0·5, 1 and 2 mm positions were defined as lateral positions close to the MI and the 3 mm position as an edge-to-edge position. The frequency of non-working-side occlusal contacts decreased gradually from 0·5 to 3 mm position. The frequency of non-working-side contacts was significantly greater in the 0·5 and 1 mm positions than in the 3 mm position. Non-working-side occlusal contacts occurred in nearly half of the 0·5 mm positions. Non-working-side contacts were significantly less frequent with canine protection than with group function for the 0·5 and 1 mm positions. There were no significant differences between the two occlusal schemes for the 2 and 3 mm positions. In conclusions, the non-working-side contact pattern varied with the mandibular position. These results suggest that clinical examination should include contact patterns both in a position close to the MI and in an edge-to-edge position, i.e. in functional and parafunctional ranges. Likewise, data from occlusal contact research should include a standardized definition of mandibular position. [source]

Patients' Evaluation of Two Occlusal Schemes for Implant Overdentures

CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, Issue 3 2008
BHealSc, John M. Aarts BEd, MhealSc, PGDipCDTech
ABSTRACT Background: There is an absence of conclusive evidence for occlusal schemes in implant overdentures. Purpose: To investigate the consequences of two different occlusal schemes on levels of satisfaction for patients wearing implant overdentures. Materials and Methods: Within an existing randomized controlled clinical trial, a physiologic occlusal scheme was compared with a lingualized occlusal scheme for 18 selected participants all with implant overdentures. Nine participants had conventional maxillary complete dentures opposing mandibular 2-implant overdentures; a further nine participants had maxillary 3-implant overdentures opposing mandibular 2-implant overdentures. All participants recruited had been wearing their original prostheses for 3 years with a bilateral balance occlusal scheme. The participants' existing satisfaction levels, as a baseline, were determined using visual analogue scale questionnaires. They were followed by similar assessments of two further occlusal schemes using 2-month assessment periods. On completion of the study, the participants selected their preferred occlusal scheme and semiformal interviews were conducted to assess the rationale for their choices. Results: Baseline data showed all the participants had pre-existing high satisfaction levels. Thereafter, of those participants that received lingualized occlusion first, 55.6% reported that the physiologic occlusion was better than lingualized occlusion. For those participants who received the physiologic occlusion first, 85.7% reported that physiologic occlusion was better than lingualized occlusion. On completion of the study, 64.7% of the participants preferred the physiologic occlusion, 35.3% preferred the lingualized occlusion. However, when the two groups' satisfaction scores were modeled using the three main key indicator questions (general satisfaction, general ability to chew, or general function), there were no significant differences between them. Conclusions: Within the limitations of a small number of participants, the majority of them still indicated a preference for a physiologic occlusion for implant overdentures. Improved function was given as the main indicator for that preference. Having implant overdentures in one or both jaws is not a formative factor in patient's opinions on occlusal schemes. [source]