Evaluación funcional de las restauraciones protésicas fijas. Reporte de serie de casos / Functional Evaluation of Fixed Prosthetic Restorations. Case Series Report

Oscar Hernán Zuluaga López

Abstract


RESUMEN. Antecedentes: Innumerables complicaciones hacen que una prótesis parcial fija (PPF) o corona individual fracasen. Por tal razón, se requiere evaluarlas permanentemente, principalmente en los ámbitos donde se forman los profesionales en odontología. Objetivo: Evaluar biológica, mecánica y funcionalmente las PPF colocadas en un servicio odontológico de pregrado en Manizales, Colombia. Métodos: Este estudio descriptivo evaluó 44 prótesis fijas realizadas en 23 pacientes. Los antecedentes se tomaron de la historia clínica. Se valoraron criterios clínicos biológicos, mecánicos y funcionales a través de montajes en un articulador semiajustable. Se realizó una clasificación protésica como tratamientos exitosos, tratamientos con complicaciones reversibles y con complicaciones irreversibles. Resultados: 36 prótesis cumplieron parámetros de supervivencia protésica, entre los cuales complicaciones reversibles relacionadas con alteraciones de los tejidos periodontales y alteración de los contactos interoclusales se identificaron en 20 prótesis. 8 prótesis presentaban complicaciones irreversibles afectadas por severos problemas periodontales y desadaptaciones marginales. No se observaron alteraciones pulpares y ni fracturas dentales o protésicas. Conclusión: La mayoría de las PPF (81,8 %) mostraron parámetros de supervivencia protésica con algunas complicaciones reversibles. Entre los factores identificados que se deben enfatizar en la formación de los estudiantes de odontología al hacer prótesis están el compromiso del paciente con el tratamiento, la higiene oral y el mantenimiento clínico. Ellos son necesarios para garantizar la longevidad de las restauraciones, teniendo en cuenta que el riesgo de complicaciones se incrementa con el tiempo.

ABSTRACT. Background: Innumerable complications may cause a fixed partial prosthesis (FPP) or single crown to fail. Therefore, it is important following up them, particularly in those spaces where dental professionals are trained. Purpose: To conduct a biological, mechanical, and functional evaluation of FPPs cemented at a predoctoral dental clinic in Manizales, Colombia. Methods: This descriptive study evaluated 44 FPPs made in 23 patients. Medical information was obtained from patients’ clinical records. Biological, mechanical, and functional criteria were evaluated through analysis of mounted models in semi-adjustable articulators. Decision criteria were: successful treatments, treatments with reversible complications, and treatments with irreversible complications. Results: 36 prostheses met prosthetic survival parameters of which 20 presented reversible complications consisting of alterations of periodontal tissues and interocclusal contacts. 8 prostheses showed irreversible complications, which were caused by severe periodontal problems and marginal discrepancies. Neither pulpal alterations nor dental or prosthetic fractures were observed. Conclusion: Most FPP (81.8 %) met prosthetic survival parameters with some reversible complications. Factors identified that should be emphasized while training dental students in fixed prosthodontics include: patient compliance with treatment recommendation, dental hygiene, and maintenance follow-ups. They are necessary to guarantee lasting results if considering that risk of complications increases with time. 


Keywords


complicaciones del tratamiento; educación odontológica; evaluación clínica; prostodoncia; prótesis parcial fija; supervivencia protésica

Full Text:

PDF (Español)

References


Glantz POJ, Nilner K, Jendresen MD, Sundberg H. Quality of fixed prosthodontics after twenty- two years. Acta Odontol Scand 2002; 60: 213-218.

Glantz POJ, Nyman S. Technical and biophysical aspects of fixed partial dentures for patients with reduced periodontal support. J Prosthet Dent 1982; 47: 47-51.

Backer H, Van Maele, De Moor N, Van den Berghe L, The Influence of Gender and Age on Fixed Prosthetic Restoration Longevity: An Up to 18- to 20-Year Follow-up in an Undergraduate Clinic. Int J Prosthodont 2007; 6: 580-586.

Glantz, P. O. J., & Niler, K. Patient age and long term survival of fixed prosthodontics. Gerodontology. 1993; 10 (1), 33-39.

Creugers NHL, Kiiyser AF, Van’t Hof MA: A meta-analysis of durability data on conventional fixed bridges. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1994; 22: 448-52.

Libby G, Arcuri M, LaVelle W, Hebl L. Longevity of fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1997; 78: 127-131.

Scurria MS, Bader JD, Shugars DA. Metanalysis of fixed partial denture survival: prostheses and abutments. J Prosthet Dent 1998; 79: 459-64.

Valderhaug J. A 15-year clinical evaluation of fixed prosthodontics. Acta Odontol Scand 1991; 49: 35-40.

Holm Ch, Tidehag P, Tillberg A, Molin M. Longevity and quality of FPDs: A retrospective study of restorations 30, 20, and 10 years after insertion. Int J Prosthodont 2003; 16: 283-289.

Valderhaug J, Birkeland JM. Periodontal conditions in patients 5 years following insertion on fixed prostheses. Department of prosthetic and dental institute of experimental research. 1975; 4: 237-243.

Ardila CM. Influencia de los márgenes de las restauraciones sobre la salud gingival. Av. Odontoestomatol 2010; 26 (2): 107-114.

Silness J. Periodontal conditions in patients treated with dental bridges. Journal of Periodontal Research. 1970; 5 (1), 60-68.

Randow K, Glantz PO, Zôgger B. Technical failures and some related clinical complications in extensive fixed prosthodontics. Acta Odontol Scand. 1986; 44: 242-55.

Walton TR. A 10-year longitudinal study of fixed prosthodontics: Clinical characteristics and outcome of single-unit metal-ceramic crowns. Int J Prosthodont 1999; 12: 519-526

Näpänkangas R, Raustia AM. Twenty-year follow-up of metal-ceramic single crowns: a retrospective study. Int J Prosthodont 2008; 21: 307-311.

Pjetursson E, Sailer I, Zwahlen M, Hämmerle C, A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of all-ceramic and metal–ceramic reconstructions after an observation period of at least 3 years. Clin. Oral Impl. 2007; 18: 73-85.

Guzy G, Nicholl J. In vitro comparison of intact endodontically treated teeth with and without endo-post reinforcement. J Prosthet Dent 1979; 42(1): 39-44. In: Cheung W. A review of the management of endodontically treated teeth. Post, core and the final restoration. J Am Dent Assoc 2005; 136: 611-619.

Shillingburg HT, Hobo S, Whitsett L, Jacobi R, Brackett S. Preparation for extensively damaged teeth In: Shillingburg, HT. Fundamentals of fixed prosthodontics. 3rd ed. Chicago, IL: Quintessence; 1997.

Gómez PM, Lidó B, Rivero A. A 10-year retrospective study of the survival rate of teeth restored with metal prefabricated posts versus cast metal posts and cores. J Dent. 2010; 38: 916-920.

Nico H.J. Creugers. 5-Year follow-up of a prospective clinical study on various Types of core restorations. Int J Prosthodont 2005; 18: 34-39.

Trope M, Maltz DO, Tronstad L. Resistance to fracture of restored endodontically treated teeth. Endodontics & Dental Traumatology 1985; 1: 108-11.

W. Becker, L. Berg, B. Becker. The long-term evaluation of periodontal treatment and maintenance in 95 Patients. International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry #2. 1984

Bouchard P, Renouard F, Bourgeois D, Fromentin O, Jeanneret, M.H. & Beresniak. A. Cost eff ctiveness modeling of dental implant vs. bridge. Clinical Oral Implants Research 2009; 20: 583-587.

Layton D. A Critical Appraisal of the Survival and Complication Rates of Tooth-Supported All-Ceramic and Metal-Ceramic Fixed Dental Prostheses: The Application of Evidence-Based Dentistry. Int J Prosthodont 2011; 24: 417-427

Tan K, Pjetursson BE, Lang NP & Chan ES. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) after an observation period of at least 5 years. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2004; 15: 654-666.

Pjetursson BE, Bragger U, Lang NP & Zwahlen M. Comparison of survival and complication rates of tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs), implant-supported FDPs, and single crowns (SCs). Clinical Oral Implants Research 2007; 18 (Suppl. 3): 97-113.

Salvi GE & Bragger U. Mechanical and technical risks in implant therapy. The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants. 2009; 24 (Suppl.): 69-85.

Sánchez L, Estupiñán DM, Reyes GK, Acosta JA. Bacterias anaerobias presentes en surco gingival de pacientes con prótesis parcial fija - NOVA - Publicación Científica en ciencias biomédicas. Vol.6 No. 9 enero - junio de 2008: pags: 14-19.

Orug B, Baysallar M, Cetiner D, Kucukkaraaslan A, Dogan B, Dogancy L, Akca E, Bal, B. Increased antibacterial activity of Zinc polycarboxylate cement by the addition of chlorhexidine gluconate in fixed prosthodontics. Int J Prosthodont 2005; 18: 377-382.

Van Winkelhoff A, Loos B, Vander Reidjen W, Vander Veiden U. Porphyromonas gingivalis and other putative pathogens in subjects with and without periodontal destruction. J Periodontol 2002; 29: 1023-1028.

Van Winkelhoff A, Goene R, Benschop C, Folmer T. Early colonization of dental implants by putative periodontal pathogens in partially edentulous patients. Clinical Oral Implants Res. 2000; 11: 511-520.

Flores-de-Jacoby L, Zafiropoulos GG, Ciancio S. The effect of crown margins location on plaque and periodontal health. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1989; 9: 197-205.

Armitage G, Svanberg G, Löe H. Microscopic evaluation of clinical measurements of connective tissue attachment levels. J Clin Periodontol. 1977; 4: 173-190.

Magnusson I, Listgarten M. Histological evaluation of probing depth following periodontal treatment. J Clin Periodontol. 1980; 7: 26-31.

Manns Freese, AE, & Biotti Picand JL. Manual práctico de oclusión dentaria. Caracas, Venezuela: AMOLCA. 2006.

McNamara Jr JA, Seligman DA, & Okeson JP. Occlusion, orthodontic treatment, and temporomandibular disorders: a review. Journal of orofacial pain. 1995; 9 (1): 73-91.

Okeson J. Tratamiento de oclusión y de afecciones temporomandibulares. España: Harcourt Brace; 1999; 391-515.

Valderhaug J, Jokstad A, Ambj_rnsen E. & Norheim PW. Assessment of the periapical and clinical status of crowned teeth over 25 years. Journal of Dentistry. 1997; 25: 97-105.

Lulic M, Bragger U, Lang NP, Zwahlen M, Salvi GE. Ante’s (1926) law revisited a systematic review on survival rates and complications of fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) on severely reduced periodontal tissue support. Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 2007; 18 (Suppl. 3): 63-72.

Nicolaisen MH, Bahrami G, Schropp L, & Isidor F. Comparison of Metal-Ceramic and All-Ceramic Three-Unit Posterior Fixed Dental Prostheses: A 3-Year Randomized Clinical Trial. The International journal of prosthodontics. 2015; 29(3): 259-264.

Sailer I, Pjetursson BE, Zwahlen M, Hämmerle CHF. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of all-ceramic and metal–ceramic reconstructions after an observation period of at least 3 years. Part II: fixed dental prostheses. Clin.Oral Impl. 2007; Res. 18 (Suppl. 3): 86-96

Pihlaja J, Näpänkangas R, & Raustia A. Early complications and short-term failures of zirconia single crowns and partial fixed dental prostheses. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 2014; 112(4): 778-783.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.uo35-75.efrt

Article Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM




Copyright (c) 2016 Oscar Hernán Zuluaga López

Creative Commons
This work is registered under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International.
Created from http://revistas.javeriana.edu.co/.