ABSTRACT
Objective: To compare the effectiveness of local and topical anesthesia during gingival retraction in prepared abutment teeth. Material and Methods: 72 patients desiring full mouth rehabilitation or bilateral fixed partial denture in the same arch were selected based on the inclusion criteria framed and were randomly allocated into Groups A and B of 36 each. Patients in Group A received gingival retraction with topical anesthesia and Group B received gingival retraction with infiltration anesthesia. All the patients were tested for pain, discomfort and bleeding during gingival retraction. Results: There was no significant difference in pain, discomfort and gingival bleeding (P >.05) during gingival retraction using topical and local anesthetic agents. Conclusion: Topical anesthesia was equally effective as infiltration anesthesia in managing the pain, discomfort and bleeding during gingival retraction by cord packing in prepared abutment teeth. (AU)
Objetivo: Comparar a eficácia da anestesia local e tópica durante a retração gengival previa a moldagem em dentes pilares preparados. Material e Métodos: Foram selecionados 72 pacientes indicados para reabilitação bucal total ou prótese parcial fixa bilateral na mesma arcada com base nos critérios de inclusão formulados e alocados aleatoriamente nos Grupos A e B com 36 pacientes cada. Os pacientes do Grupo A receberam retração gengival com anestesia tópica e no Grupo B receberam retração gengival com anestesia infiltrativa. Todos os pacientes foram testados para dor, desconforto e sangramento durante o procedimento. Resultados: Não houve diferença significativa na dor, desconforto e sangramento gengival (P>. 05) durante a retração gengival com anestésicos tópicos e locais. Conclusão: A anestesia tópica foi tão eficaz quanto a anestesia de infiltração no controle da dor, desconforto e sangramento durante a retração gengival com fio retrator gengival em dentes pilares preparados.(AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Pain , Dental Leakage , Gingival Retraction Techniques , Anesthetics, LocalABSTRACT
Maxillofacial rehabilitation after accidents, surgical removal due to malignancy or congenital deformity is challenging, since it not only affects the patient function and aesthetics but also impairs the patient confidence in the society. Prosthodontic rehabilitation restores patient confidence, comfort along with function and aesthetics. Various prosthodontic treatment options are available. Selection of adequate prosthesis that suits the patient is of utmost importance. Fixed or removable prosthesis are selected based on the supporting structures. If the teeth or underlying bone are of poor quality or quantity, removable prosthesis is advised. Conventional complete denture therapy results in inadequate denture retention, stability & patient satisfaction.1 The patient’s confidence & comfort in such cases would be compromised. However, the hybrid dentures could overcome the shortcomings of conventional complete dentures. Problems like loose dentures, loss of proprioception & bone resorption can be resolved with hybrid dentures & hence it is the last line of defence that successfully keeps patients from becoming edentulous. Studies indicate that there is inevitable resorption of residual ridge, following the loss of teeth. Ridges treated with hybrid dentures showed significant less vertical alveolar bone resorption than ridges with conventional complete maxillary and mandibular dentures.2 The rate of resorption depends on three factors; the character of bone, health of the individual and the amount and type of forces on the bone. Ten years of clinical investigation showed that weak teeth used as support for denture prosthesis not only remained in position but a few have regained a healthier status.3 Neil’s Brill (1955) classified the dentures supported by the existing natural teeth that had characteristics of both a removable partial denture and a complete denture, were termed as Hybrid Prosthesis.4 This case report describes the prosthodontic rehabilitation of a patient after undergoing partial maxillectomy due to mucormycosis.Rehabilitation of maxillofacial defect to an acceptable manner is challenging as it is related with psychological factors apart from function and aesthetics. A proper selection of prosthesis is utmost important to achieve this goal. The basic principles of any prosthetic design include preservation of the remaining natural tissues along with retention, stability, support, and aesthetics. Prosthodontic rehabilitation can be done either fixed or removable based on the supporting structures. If the hard tissue support is not adequate to withstand forces for fixed restoration, removable prosthesis are recommended. This clinical report describes maxillary rehabilitation with removable prosthesis in a compromised hard tissue support.