Amaç: Bu çalışmada, sabit protetik restorasyonların söküm nedenleri ve yöntemleri, protezin mevcut durumu, kullanım süresi, hasta şikâyeti faktörlerinin dağılımı ve birbiri ile ilişkisinin değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Çalışma, yaşları 14-79 arasında değişen 95 kadın ve 87 erkek olmak üzere 182 hasta ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Toplamda 220 metal-seramik kron ve köprü protezinin klinik durumu ve sökümü değerlendirilmiştir. Hastalara ait demografik veriler ve protezlerin sökümü ile ilgili klinik ve radyografik bilgiler önceden hazırlanan formlara kaydedilmiştir. Verilerin normal dağılıma uygunluğu Kolmogorov-Smirnov testi ile incelenmiştir. Kategorik verilerin karşılaştırılmasında Fisher-Freeman-Halton testi, Pearson kikare testi kullanılmıştır. Bulgular: En sık söküm yapılan grubun 10 yıldan uzun süredir kullanılan sabit protezler olduğu görülmüştür. En sık karşılaşılan söküm nedeni protezin yenilenmesi (%37) olmuştur. Söküm için başvuran hastalarda en fazla görülen bulgu kole bölgesinde açıklık (%37,7) olmuştur. Yapıldıktan 6 ay-1 yıl sonra çıkarılan protezler ağrı, 5-10 yıl ve üzeri sürede çıkarılan protezler yenileme nedeniyle sökülmüştür. En sık tercih edilen söküm yöntemi manuel köprü söküm aleti (%64,5) kullanımıdır. Radyografik bulgularda periodontal aralıkta genişleme ve dayanak dişte kemik kaybı görüldüğü durumlarda vestibül kesim yöntemi tercih edilmiştir. Sonuç: Restorasyonların en çok karşılaşılan söküm nedeni yenileme ihtiyacıdır. Protezlerin klinik ve radyografik bulgularına göre tercih edilen söküm yöntemi değişmektedir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Kron-köprü sökümü; sabit protetik restorasyon; söküm nedeni; söküm yöntemi
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the reasons and methods for removal of fixed prosthetic restorations, the condition of the prosthesis, the duration of use, and the prevalence and association of patient discomfort factors. Material and Methods: The study was carried out on 182 patients, including 95 females and 87 males, aged between 14 and 79 years. A total of 220 metal-ceramic crowns and bridges were evaluated for clinical condition and removal. Patient demographics and clinical and radiographic information related to prosthesis removal were recorded on forms provided. Normality of data distribution was assessed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. The Fisher-Freeman-Halton test and the Pearson chi-square test were used to compare categorical data. Results: It was found that the most frequently removed fixed prostheses group were used for over 10 years. The most common reason for removal was replacement (37%). The most common clinical finding was an opening in the margin area (37.7%). Prostheses removed within 6 months to 1 year were mainly due to pain, while those removed after 5-10 years or more were mainly due to the need for replacement. The most commonly used removal method was the manual bridge removal tool (64.5%). The vestibular sectioning method was preferred in cases where radiographic findings indicated expansion of the periodontal space and bone loss around the teeth. Conclusion: The most common reason for removal of restorations is the need for renewal. The method of removal varies according to the clinical and radiographic findings of the restorations.
Keywords: Crown-bridge removal; fixed prosthetic restoration; removal reason; removal method
- The Glossary of Prosthodontic Terms: Ninth Edition. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;117(5S):e1-e105. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Shillingburg HT, Hobo S, Whitsett LD, Jacobi R, Brackett SE. Fundamentals of Fixed Prosthodontics. 3rd ed. USA: Quintessence Books; 2010.
- Veeraiyan ND, Ramalingam K, Bhat V. Textbook of Prosthodontics. 1st ed. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers Medical Pub; 2003. [Crossref]
- Duran I. Direkt metal lazer sinterleme ve döküm yöntemleri ile hazırlanan Co-Cr altyapılı metal-seramik restorasyonların klinik değerlendirilmesi [Uzmanlık tezi]. Adana: Çukurova Üniversitesi; 2016. [Link]
- Christensen GJ. Porcelain-fused-to-metal vs. nonmetal crowns. J Am Dent Assoc. 1999;130(3):409-11. Erratum in: J Am Dent Assoc 1999;130(6):788. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Shtewi S, Alhouri N, Kanout S. A Survey to assess the failure in crowns and fixed partial dentures: an in vivo study. Int J Prosthodont. [PubMed]
- Al Moaleem MM. Systems and techniques for removal of failed fixed partial dentures: a review. American Journal of Health Research. 2016;4(4):109-16. [Crossref]
- Janardanan K, Varkey VK, Lovely M, Anuroopa A. Coronal disassembly systems and techniques: an overview. Journal of Interdisciplinary Dentistry. 2014;4(1):33-40. [Crossref]
- Bajunaid SO. Review of techniques for the intact removal of a permanently cemented restoration. Gen Dent. 2017;65(5):48-53. [PubMed]
- Sharma A, Rahul GR, Poduval ST, Shetty K. Removal of failed crown and bridge. J Clin Exp Dent. 2012;4(3):e167-72. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Sutherland JK, Cheeseman SL. Multiple prosthodontic uses for permanent crown remover forceps. J Prosthet Dent. 1997;77(1):99-101. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Chidiac JJ, Chidiac G. Modification of probe for use as a crown remover. J Prosthet Dent. 2002;88(4):457. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Loney RW. Practical uses for provisional crown remover forceps in fixed and removable prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent. 1992;67(5):734-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Alhaddad AJ, Abuzinadah SH, Alkhalifah T, Alkhozaim D, Alnasser I, Alfaleh H, et al. Recent techniques for removal of indirect restorations: classification and minimally invasive approach. Ann Med Health Sci Res. 2021;11:31-6.
- Değirmenci K, Atala MH, Ankaralı H. Sabit protetik restorasyonların söküm nedenlerinin kişilerin yaşam kalitesi üzerine etkisinin değerlendirilmesi [Assessment of the effects of the removing causes for fixed partial dentures on quality of life of individuals]. J Dent Fac Atatürk Uni. 2020;30(2):260-6. [Link]
- Özdemir N, Akar Coşkun G, Uluer H, Aksoy G. Sabit protetik restorasyonların söküm nedenleri ve yöntemlerinin değerlendirilmesi [An evaluation of the causes and the methods of removal of fixed partial dentures]. EÜ Dişhek Fak Derg. 2007;28:169-77. [Link]
- Şermet B, Değer S, İşsever H. Sabit protetik restorasyonların ağızda kalma sürelerinin ve söküm nedenlerinin araştırılması [The life-span and the reasons for replacement in fixed prosthodontics]. GÜ Dişhek Fak Derg. 1997;14(1-2):79-86. [Link]
- Taşsöker M, Tunçdemir AR. An investigation of reasons for the removal of tooth-supported fixed prosthetic restorations. Turkiye Klinikleri J Dental Sci. 2019;25(2):117-23. [Crossref]
- Singh G, Madan N, Kumar M, Walia C, Singh OP. A study to evaluate life span of crowns & fixed partial dentures and various reasons of their failures. Dental Journal of Advance Studies. 2013;1(2):95-9. [Link]
- Polat Sağsöz N, Yanıkoğlu N, Aladağ Lİ, Özdemir H, Çiftçi H. Sabit protetik restorasyonların söküm nedenlerinin araştırılması ve geleneksel söküm yöntemleri ile KaVo CORONAflex restorasyon sökücüsünün karşılaştırılması [The investigation of reasons for removal of fixed prosthetic restorations and comparison of traditional removal method with KaVo CORONAflex restoration remover]. J Dent Fac Atatürk Uni. 2014;24(3):378-85. [Crossref]
- Sutharshana V, Gounder R. Clinical performances of fixed bridges and crowns amongst patients visiting a private dental college in Tamil Nadu. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research. 2016;8(8):775-8. [Link]
- Karlsson S. A clinical evaluation of fixed bridges, 10 years following insertion. J Oral Rehabil. 1986;13(5):423-32. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Hämmerle CH, Ungerer MC, Fantoni PC, Brägger U, Bürgin W, Lang NP. Long-term analysis of biologic and technical aspects of fixed partial dentures with cantilevers. Int J Prosthodont. 2000;13(5):409-15. [PubMed]
- Walton TR. An up to 15-year longitudinal study of 515 metal-ceramic FPDs: Part 2. Modes of failure and influence of various clinical characteristics. Int J Prosthodont. 2003;16(2):177-82. [PubMed]
- Naz A, Musharraf H, Jawad A, Zia K, Kumar B, Lone MA. Assessment of failure of prosthesis in fixed prosthodontics among patients reporting to a teaching dental hospital of Karachi. J Pak Dent Assoc. 2020;29(3):105-9. [Crossref]
- Oginni AO. Failures related to crowns and fixed partial dentures fabricated in a Nigerian dental school. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2005;6(4):136-43. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Raza M, Fahimullah, Fayyaz M, Akram S. Complications and their severity in patients of conventional metal ceramic fixed dental prosthesis: a clinical study. Pakistan Oral & Dental Journal. 2015;35(1)155-8. [Link]
- Hochman N, Mitelman L, Hadani PE, Zalkind M. A clinical and radiographic evaluation of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) prepared by dental school students: a retrospective study. J Oral Rehabil. 2003;30(2):165-70. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Fayyad MA, al-Rafee MA. Failure of dental bridges. II. Prevalence of failure and its relation to place of construction. J Oral Rehabil. 1996;23(6):438-40. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Alsterstål-Englund H, Moberg LE, Petersson J, Smedberg JI. A retrospective clinical evaluation of extensive tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses after 10 years. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;125(1):65-72. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Ikai H, Kanno T, Kimura K, Sasaki K. A retrospective study of fixed dental prostheses without regular maintenance. J Prosthodont Res. 2010;54(4):173-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Al Refai R, Saker S. Clinical and radiographic assessment of reasons for replacement of metal- ceramic fixed dental prostheses in patients referring to dental school. J Clin Exp Dent. 2018;10(1):e75-e80. [PubMed] [PMC]
- Zafar N, Ghani F. Common post-fitting complications in tooth-supported fixed-fixed design metal-ceramic fixed dental prostheses. Pak J Med Sci. 2014;30(3):619-25. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Pawar S. Failures of crown and fixed partial dentures - a clinical survey. International Journal of Contemporary Dentistry. 2011;2(1):120-1. [Link]
.: Process List