Bridgework 3 Flashcards

1
Q

alternatives to bridgework

A

no restoration

denture(s)

implant(s)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

holistic tx planning

A
  • Look at the whole mouth
  • Not only at a specific tooth
  • Plan for retrievability (always have a back-up plan)
    • All restorations will eventually fail
    • What will be options? Replace like for like? More destructive resort?
  • What will the dentition be like in 10-years?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

longevity of RBB

A

80% over 5-10years

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

longevity of cantilever bridge

A

80% over 5-10years

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

longevity of fixed-fixed over 5-10years

A

90%

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

collect information when gathering pt history in regards to bridge planning

A
  • History
    • Presenting complaint
    • Medical and social history
    • Past dental history
      • attendance, OH
  • Clinical examination (Extra- and intra-oral)
    • Soft tissues
    • Periodontal
    • Caries risk assessment
    • Occlusion
    • Parafunction
  • Abutment evaluation
    • Remaining tooth structure
    • Special tests
      • Radiographs
  • Occlusion
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

occlusal information for bridgework planning

A
  • Examine:
    • Intra-orally
    • Study casts
      • Facebow-mounted on semi-adjustable articulator
  • Incisal classification (ortho lectures)
  • Canine-guided or group function?
  • Opposing tooth over-erupted?
    • Reducing interocclusal space
  • Will bridge interfere with current occlusion?
    • Will it be changed when bridge placed?
  • Signs of parafunction present?
    • Wear facets, attrition etc.
      • Bruxism – risk of destroying bridge when placed
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

5 considerations for designing and planning bridges

A
  • Minimal preparation or conventional preparation?
    • i.e. Conservation of tooth tissue
  • Material?
  • Abutment evaluation?
  • Cleansability
    • Bridges will fail if OH isn’t easily performed
  • Appearance/Aesthetics
    • Confirm that the patient’s expectations are achievable
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

evaluation of potential abutments when designing and planning bridges (8)

A
  • Root configuration
    • Big or multi rooted best
  • Angulation/rotation of abutment
  • Periodontal health – withstand extra occlusal forces
  • Surface area for bonding & quality of enamel
    • E.g. amelogenesis imperfecta is contraindication for bonding
  • Risk of pulpal damage
  • Quality of endodontics:
    • Re-root canal treatment?
    • Need evidence of good endo tx, don’t risk a flare up
  • Remaining tooth structure present?
    • Enough for good resistance and retention
    • May need build ups
  • Core
    • Remove and rebuild?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

options for bridge design (3 main groups with subgroups)

A
  • Resin-bonded/Resin-retained/Adhesive
    • Cantilever
    • Fixed-fixed
  • “Conventional”
    • Cantilever
    • Fixed-fixed
    • Fixed-moveable
  • Hybrid

Compare advantages and disadvantages of each design

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

5 points in bridge design planning

A
  • Select abutment teeth
    • Judge longevity of adjacent teeth
  • Select retainer
    • No prep, minimal prep, regular prep? (RBBs)
    • Complete crown retainer? (Conventional design)
  • Select pontic and connector
    • Sanitary/Wash-through pontic
    • Dome/Bullet/Torpedo
    • Modified ridge lap
    • Total ridge lap
    • Ovate pontic
  • Plan the occlusion
  • Prescribe material
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

3 functions of pontic

A

restore appearance of missing tooth

stabilise occlusion

improve masticatory function

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

3 considerations for pontic design

A

cleansability

appearance

strength

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

cleansability in pontic design

A
  • Should always be smooth, with highly polished or glazed surface
  • Surface should not harbour join of metal and porcelain (if metal-ceramic design used)
    • Don’t want shearing off metal due to occlusal force
      • Check where occlusal contacts are and ensure lab don’t make join there
  • Embrasure space smooth and cleansable
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

appaerance for pontic design

A

anteriorly - as ‘tooth like’ as possible

posteriorly - may compromise

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

strength for pontic design

A

longer the span - greater the thickness required to withstand occlusal forces

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

4 surfaces of pontic

A
  • Occlusal surface
    • Resemble surface of tooth it replaces
    • Narrower if possible to enable cleaning
    • Should have sufficient occlusal contact so can function
      • Need driven down long axis of tooth
  • Approximal surface
    • Connector: strength (roughly 2 by 2 mm for strength)
    • Embrasure: space – floss/interdental, but want to try and reduce for aesthetic
  • Buccal & lingual surface
  • Ridge surface
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

wash through pontic design

A

a.k. hygienic or sanitary

makes no contact with soft tissue

fucntional rather than for appearance

consider in lower molar area

19
Q

dome shaped pontic design

A

a.k.a torpedo or bullet shaped

useful in lower incisor, premolar or upper molar areas

acceptable if occlusal 2/3 of buccal surface visible - poor aesthetics if gingival 1/3 of tooth visible

20
Q

modified ridge lap pontic design

A

buccal surface looks as much like tooth as possible

lingual surface cut away

line contact with buccal of ridge

problems with food packing on lingual surface of ridge

21
Q

ridge lap/saddle pontic design

A

greatest contact with soft tissue

if designed carefully: can be cleansed

less food packing than ridge-lap

care taken not to displace soft tissue or cause blanching of tissue

22
Q

ovate pontic design

A

good for OH good and want optimal aesthetics

presses on gingivae, makes divet so looks like natural tooth piercing out of ginivae

may place in essix retainer and use that to help make divet, add composite to press more and then move onto final bridge with ovate pontic

23
Q

materials for conventional bridges

A
  • All metal
    • Gold
    • Nickel/Cobalt chromium?
    • Stainless steal
  • Metal ceramic
  • All ceramic – more likely to #, but starting to rival MC
    • Zirconia – very strong, but less aesthetic than lithium disilicate
      • E.g. LAVATM and Procera®
    • Lithium disilicate
      • e.g. - E.max
  • Ceromeric (porcelain with composite), less used
    • BelleGlass™
    • Vectris®
    • Targis® Vectris®
24
Q

common place for all metal bridges

A

lower posterior area (gold)

25
Q

metal ceramic bridges usually

A

make up the majority of bridges made in UK currently

26
Q

LavaTM 3M ESPE bridges

A
  • 3 – 4 unit fixed bridge (Maximum span) milled zirconium oxide frame with feldspathic porcelain overlying
  • Withstand occlusal forces
  • Good aesthetics
  • Similar reduction to MCC
27
Q

zirconia bridge

A
  • GDH&S Fixed Pros lab now producing more all ceramic restorations
  • Preparations on casts scanned
    • Straűmann© – 7 Series by Dental Wings
    • Nobel BioCare © – Series 5
  • KATANA© zirconia
    • Multi-layered (ML) zirconia
    • Ultra translucent multilayer (UTML) zirconia
  • Milled
  • +/- feldspathic (layer) porcelain on top
28
Q

implant retained bridges

for

types

A

large span bridges

screw-retained or cement retained

29
Q

technique for conventional bridgework

A
  • Mounted study models
  • Consider diagnostic wax-up and custom impression tray
  • Request laboratory to construct vacuum-formed stent
    • Allows checking of reduction during tooth preparation
    • Allows construction of provisional bridge
  • Select shade
  • Laboratory made stent or make pre-operative putty impression for provisional bridge
  • Occlusal or incisal reduction
  • Separation of teeth
  • Aim for parallelism of tapered surface of each preparation
    • Example: Preparation of fixed-fixed bridge for 13 12 11
      • Prep mesial of 11, then mesial of 13
      • Prep distal of 11, then distal of 13
      • Prep labial (2-planes) of 11, then labial 13 …..etc
  • Confirm parallelism
  • Consider retentive features if short clinical crown height or overtapered
    • Slots
    • Grooves
  • Construct provisional bridge (do first before definitive imp)
  • Make impression and occlusal registration
  • Temporarily cement provisional bridge
  • Demonstrate cleaning with Superfloss™
  • Write/draw prescription for technician – be specific
    • Type of bridge
    • Abutment teeth
    • Pontic teeth
    • Shape of pontic
    • Material to be used
30
Q

parallelism

A

Consider for fixed-fixed conventional bridge

  • Requires two or more teeth to be prepared in a manner to provide a common path of insertion – increased retention
  • No undercuts

Paralleling by eye

  • Direct vision, one-eye closed
  • Large mouth mirror (posteriorly)
  • Use of a straight (right angle) probe like a laboratory surveyor, but in the mouth

Extra-oral survey

  • Quick impression
  • Pour a model
  • Use a laboratory surveyor; useful in long span multiple unit bridges
31
Q

definitive cementation for all metal conventional bridgework (2 options)

A
  • Aquacem (GI luting cement)
  • RelyX™Luting (RMGI luting cement)
32
Q

defintive cementation for metal ceramic bridgework (2 options)

A
  • Aquacem (GI luting cement)
  • RelyX™Luting (RMGI luting cement)
33
Q

defintive cementation for adhesive/resin-bonded/resin-retained bridgework

A

Panavia 21 (anaerobic duel cure resin cement with 10-MDP)

34
Q

definitive cementation for all ceramic bridgework

A

NEXUS® kit (duel cure resin cement)

35
Q

distal cantilevers

A

Avoid if possible

  • Concern that occlusal forces on pontic will produce leverage forces on abutment tooth causing it to tilt

May consider distal cantilever from premolar abutment if unopposed or opposed by a denture e.g. to make a SDA

36
Q

5 year longevity for resin-bonded/ resin retained/ adhesive

A

80.8%

37
Q

5 year longevity for conventional fixed-fixed (metal ceramic)

A

93.8%

38
Q

5 year longevity for conventional fixed-fixed (ceramic)

A

88.6%

39
Q

5 year longevity for conventional cantilever bridge

A

91.4%

40
Q

5 year longevity for implant retained bridge

A

95.2%

41
Q

10 year longevity for resin-bonded/ resin reatained/ adhesive bridge

A

80.4%

similar to 5 year

42
Q

10 year longevity for conventional fixed-fixed (metal ceramic)

A

89.2%

down 4% approx

43
Q

10 year longevity for implant retained bridge

A

86.7%

down 10% approx

44
Q

10 year longevity for conventional cantilever

A

80.3%

down 10% approx