Buradasınız

Anasayfa » Content

IMPLANT DESTEKL İ NAZAL EPİTEZLER İLE ADEZİV İLE TUTUNAN NAZAL EPİTEZLERİN KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI

COMPARISON OF IMPLANT RETAINED NASAL PROSTHESIS TO ADHESIVE RETAINED NASAL PROSTHESIS

Journal Name:

  • İstanbul Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2005

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
Restoration of facial defects is a difficult challenge for both the surgeon and the prosthodontist. The success obtained is determined by the type of defect, the skill of the prosthodontist and the properties of the materials. For obtaining adequate retention different methods can be used dependening on the properties of the defect region. The aim of this study İs to imply the advantages of implant retained facial prosthesis versus adhesive retained prosthesis.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Yüz d efekti erinin restorasyonu hem cerrahi hem de protetik açıdan komplikedir. Protezin başarısı defektin tipi prostodontisîin becerisi ve materyallerin özelliklerine bağlıdır. Yüz protezlerinin tutuculuğunun sağlanmasında defektin özelliklerine bağlı olarak farklı yöntemler kullanılabilir. Bu bildiride tutuculuğun sağlanmasında yararlanılan adezive karşı implanhn avantajları vurgulanmaktadır.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-implant-destekl-i-nazal-epitezler-ile-adeziv-ile-tutunan-nazal-epitezlerin-karsilastirilmasi.pdf
  • 3-4
21
32
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1. Nishimura RD ve ark. Craniofacial prostheses retained with osseointegrated implants.Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent, 1999: 11(6): 711-2, 714-5.
2. Beumer J 3rd, Roumanas E, Nishimura R. Advances in osseointegrated implants for dental and facial rehabilitation following major head and neck surgery. Semin Surg Oncol, 1995: 11 (3): 200-7.
3. Jani RM, Schaaf NG. An evaluation of facial prostheses. J Prosthet Dent, 1978: 39 (5): 546¬50.
4. Beumer J, Curtis TA, Marunick MT. Maxillofacial Rehabilitation Prosthodontic and Surgical Considerations. Canada: Ishiyaku EuroAmerica Inc, 1996.
5. Kiat-Amnuay S ve ark. Effect of adhesive retention of maxillofacial prostheses. Part 2: Time and reapplication effects. J Prosthet Dent, 2001:85(5): 438-41.
6. Thomas KF. Freestanding magnetic retention for extraoral prosthesis with osseointegrated implants. J Prosthet Dent, 1995: 73 (2): 162-5.
7.
Çötert S. Çene-yüz pro tezleri.Ege Üniversitesi Basımevi 2003; 130-133
8. Gary JJ, Albright JE, Bernhart BJ. Rehabilitation of a patient with an implant-supported auricular prosthesis. J Term Dent Assoc, 2000: 80(1): 20-1.
9. Tjellstrom A ve ark. Five years' experience with bone-anchored auricular prostheses. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 1985: 93 (3): 366-72.
10. Kiat-amnuay S ve ark. Effect of adhesive retention on maxillofacial prostheses. Part I: Skin dressings and solvent removers. J Prosthet Dent, 2000: 84 (3): 335-40.
11. Tjellstrom A, Granström G. One-stage procedure to establish osseo integration: a zer oto five years follow-up report.The journal of Laryngology and Otology, 1995: 109: 593-598
12. Beumer J, Ma T3 Marunick MT, Roumanas E, Nishimura R. Restoration of facial defects: Etiology, Disability and rehabilitation, Maxillofacial Rehabilitation.1996: 377- 436.
13. Mekayarajjananonth T ve ark. Alternative retention for an implant-retained auricular prosthesis. J Oral Implantol, 2002: 28 (3): 117¬21.
14. Moy PK ve ark. Stabilization of craniofacial prostheses using osseointegrated titanium implants. Laryngoscope, 1993: 103 (12): 1399¬405.
15. Parel SM. Osseointegration and facial prosthetics. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 1986: 1 (1): 27-9.
16. Reisberg DJ, Habakuk SW. Hygiene procedures for implant-retained facial prostheses. J Prosthet Dent, 1995:74 (5): 499-502.
17. Roumanas ED ve ark. Implant-retained prostheses for facial defects: an up to 14-year follow-up report on the survival rates of implants at UCLA. Int J Prosthodont, 2002: 15 (4): 325-32.
18. Wang R. Preoperative auricular wax pattern duplication for surgical template fabrication. J Prosthet Dent, 1999: 81(5): 634-7.
19. Wolfaardt JF ve ark. Craniofacial osseointegration: the Canadian experience. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 1993: 8 (2): 197-204.
20. Chen MS, Udagama A, Drane JB. Evaluation of facial prostheses for head and neck cancer patients. JProsthet Dent, 1981: 46 (5): 538-44.
21. Wright RF ve ark. Multidisciplinary treatment for an implant retained auricular prosthesis rehabilitation. N Y State Dent J, 1999: 65 (7): 26-31.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com