Articulos cantilever sobre implantes

J Prosthodont. 1994 Mar;3(1):41-6.
Cantilever and implant biomechanics: a review of the literature. Part 1.
Rodriguez AM, Aquilino SA, Lund PS.
Source
Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of Pittsburgh School of Dental Medicine, PA.
Abstract
In Part 1 of this two-part literature review, the biomechanics of cantilever fixed partial dentures are reviewed. Theoretical constructs ofimplant biomechanics with special emphasis on implant-supported cantilevers are also discussed. Finally, an overview of the literature regarding occlusal forces generated by patients with implant-supported prostheses is presented
_____________________________________________________________________
J Prosthet Dent. 1992 May;67(5):645-52.
Influence of occlusion on posterior cantilevers.
LaurellL, Lundgren D.
Source
Department of Periodontology, Institute for Postgraduate Dental Education, Jonkoping, Sweden.
Abstract
The incorporation of posterior two-unit cantilevers in fixed prosthodontics is generally discouraged because of the assumption that large posterior chewing and biting forces might jeopardize the prosthesis and the abutment teeth. This investigation was performed tostudy (1) the distribution of chewing and closing forces in dentitions with cross-arch bilateral posterior two-unit cantilever fixed partial dentures and (2) the influence of different occlusal arrangements on the magnitude of these forces along the cantilever segments. Six patients were included in the study. Axially directed closing and chewing forces were measured with miniature transducersbilaterally mounted in pontic units anteriorly and in each of the four cantilever units. In ideal occlusion, occlusal forces decreased considerably along the cantilever segments in the distal direction. Infraoccluding the distal cantilever unit by 80 microns had little influence on the magnitude of the initially small local force in this region, whereas an 80 microns high primary occlusal contactconsiderably increased the local force over the distal cantilever unit. The clinical implications of the results are discussed
_______________________________________________________________________________
J Prosthet Dent. 1991 Oct;66(4):545-52.
Long-term prognosis of extensive polyunit cantilevered fixed partial dentures.
Laurell L, Lundgren D, Falk H, Hugoson A.
Source
Department ofPeriodontology, Institute for Postgraduate Dental Education, Jönköping, Sweden.
Abstract
The aim of this retrospective study was to elucidate the long-term prognoses of extensive fixed partial dentures including unilateral or bilateral polyunit cantilevers in patients with healthy but reduced periodontal support. Following periodontal therapy 36 cross-arch fixed partial dentures with two or more cantileverunits unilaterally or bilaterally were fitted in 34 patients. In the prosthodontic design, special attention was given to the retention to long parallel preparations, to the dimensions of the framework, and to the occlusal design. After completion of therapy, the patients were enrolled in a regular maintenance care program and followed up for a period of 5 to 12 years. During this follow-up periodone abutment tooth was fractured in one patient. One fixed partial denture with extremely reduced periodontal support was lost as a result of complete periodontal breakdown from occlusal trauma. For 33 fixed partial dentures, neither periodontal nor technical complications occurred
_________________________________________________________________________
Int J Prosthodont. 2000Sep-Oct;13(5):409-15.
Long-term analysis of biologic and technical aspects of fixed partial dentures with cantilevers.
Hämmerle CH, Ungerer MC, Fantoni PC, Brägger U, Bürgin W, Lang NP.
Source
Clinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics, University of Zürich, Switzerland. hammerle@zzmk.unizh.ch
Abstract
PURPOSE:
The aim of the present clinical study was to analyze the long-term treatment outcome of...