Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Articles
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Community discussion
Case Presentations
Peek
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Yourgoes" data-source="post: 172278" data-attributes="member: 12795"><p>That's speculative. If you've seen shear and bending stress maps you'd notice that the properties of a material make a huge difference to the type, location and required force of failures. Also you're only looking at restorative failures. Implant failures happen too, longevity of the implant is highly affected by the restoration, passivity is the obvious one, but occlusion/load distribution is also important. </p><p></p><p>That being said, dealing with flexible materials for fixed restorations is not something we're accustomed to in north america. I'd be interested in seeing the type and frequency of failures that our European counterparts have experienced thus far. </p><p></p><p>Scary finding of a recent study; They looked at the distance cross-arch between the second mandibular molars at rest position, and then measured it again at full opening. Results showed the mandible flexes by more than 1mm! A full arch restoration made out of practically every material we currently use today would NEVER bend that much. </p><p></p><p>So where's all the stress going? Has it been detrimental all this time causing implant failures which we believed were idiopathic failures? Is it worse the larger the A/P spread is? Do flexible materials help?</p><p></p><p>We'll only know with comparative studies. The plural of anecdote, is not evidence. I'd like meta-study level proof, but from what I've seen thus far, it looks very promising.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Yourgoes, post: 172278, member: 12795"] That's speculative. If you've seen shear and bending stress maps you'd notice that the properties of a material make a huge difference to the type, location and required force of failures. Also you're only looking at restorative failures. Implant failures happen too, longevity of the implant is highly affected by the restoration, passivity is the obvious one, but occlusion/load distribution is also important. That being said, dealing with flexible materials for fixed restorations is not something we're accustomed to in north america. I'd be interested in seeing the type and frequency of failures that our European counterparts have experienced thus far. Scary finding of a recent study; They looked at the distance cross-arch between the second mandibular molars at rest position, and then measured it again at full opening. Results showed the mandible flexes by more than 1mm! A full arch restoration made out of practically every material we currently use today would NEVER bend that much. So where's all the stress going? Has it been detrimental all this time causing implant failures which we believed were idiopathic failures? Is it worse the larger the A/P spread is? Do flexible materials help? We'll only know with comparative studies. The plural of anecdote, is not evidence. I'd like meta-study level proof, but from what I've seen thus far, it looks very promising. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Who do we work for?
Post reply
Forums
Community discussion
Case Presentations
Peek
Top
Bottom