Different Pontic design with fixed dental prosthesis in Misrata - Libya

Authors

  • Ahmed Algellai Department of Dental Technology, Faculty of Medical Technology, Misrata – Libya
  • Adnan Hmeida Department of Dental Technology, Faculty of Medical Technology, Misrata – Libya
  • Abdul hakim Elraaid Department of Dental Technology, Faculty of Medical Technology, Misrata – Libya

Keywords:

Pontics, Fixed prosthesis

Abstract

The endpoint of fixed prosthesis design is an esthetic and functional pontic that is compatible with soft-tissue health. The current study aimed to assess the knowledge and practice of Pontic design selection by the general dental practitioners (GDPs). This cross-sectional study was conduct among the GDPs of Misrata. A questionnaire was design to collect data from 110 GDPs. The questionnaire included general/demographic information and an average number of fixed prosthesis constructed by the GDPs. The questionnaire was further categorize to evaluate the knowledge/practice of Pontic design selection and latest recommendations. For the maxillary anterior segment, the ridge lap Pontic was the most common (43%) followed by the conical (28%). In the maxillary posterior segment, the ridge lap Pontic was the most common (56%) followed by ovate design (23%). For the mandibular anterior segment, the ridge lap (44%) was the most common followed by modified ridge lap Pontic (27%). In case of the mandibular posterior segment, the ridge lap design (64%) was the most common followed by conical Pontic (18%). In the posterior segment, where esthetics is not as critical, a sanitary pontic form is most compatible with function and hygiene. In anterior region, esthetics is an important concern along with function and space management. ​In the maxillary anterior region, a properly contoured modified ridge-lap pontic design constructed of glazed porcelain most readily fulfills both the esthetic and physiologic requirements. The Pontic design selection for the fixed prosthesis is a neglected domain.

References

Shilling burg HT, Sather DA, Wilson EL, Cain J, Mitchell D, Blanco L, et al. Fundamentals of Fixed Prosthodontics. Surrey, United Kingdom: Quintessence Publishing Company; 2012.

Parkinson CF, Schaberg TV. Pontic design of posterior fixed partial prostheses: Is it a microbial misadventure? J Prosthet Dent 1984; 51:51-4.

Johnston JF, Phillips RW, Dykema RW. Modern Practice in Crown and Bridge Prosthodontics. Philadelphia, USA: W.B. Saunders Company; 1971.

Hirshberg SM. The relationship of oral hygiene to embrasure and pontic design – A preliminary study. J Prosthet Dent 1972; 27:26-38.

Rosenstiel SF, Land MF, Fujimoto J. Contemporary Fixed Prosthodontics-E-Book. Sr. Louis, Missouri, USA: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2015.

Tripodakis A, Konstantinidis A. Tissue response under hyperpressure from convex pontics. Hell Stomatol Chron 1989; 33:159-64.

Nagarsekar A, Gaunkar R, Aras M. Knowledge, attitude, and practice of dental professionals regarding the effect and management of food impaction associated with fixed partial denture prostheses: A survey. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2016; 16:372-9.

Downloads

Published

2023-06-15

How to Cite

Algellai, A., Hmeida, A., & Elraaid, A. hakim. (2023). Different Pontic design with fixed dental prosthesis in Misrata - Libya. Journal of Academic Research, 26, 5–8. Retrieved from https://lam-journal.ly/index.php/jar/article/view/534

Issue

Section

العلوم الهندسية والتطبيقية

Most read articles by the same author(s)