Endodontics versus implantology: To extirpate or integrate?

An increasingly frequent dilemma in restorative dentistry is the question of whether to retain a badly damaged tooth and restore it, or to remove and possibly replace it. Given the ethical difficulties inherent in testing this question, it is unlikely that we will ever see a properly designed clinic...

Celý popis

Uložené v:
Podrobná bibliografia
Vydané v:Australian endodontic journal Ročník 32; číslo 2; s. 57 - 63
Hlavní autori: Dawson, Anthony S., Cardaci, Santo C.
Médium: Journal Article
Jazyk:English
Vydavateľské údaje: Melbourne, Australia Blackwell Publishing Asia 01.08.2006
Predmet:
Dental Implantation, Endosseous - standards
Dental Implants - standards
Dental Restoration Failure
dental treatment
Denture, Partial - standards
Humans
literature review
osseointegrated dental implantation
Practice Guidelines as Topic
root canal therapy
Root Canal Therapy - standards
success rates
Survival Analysis
Treatment Outcome
ISSN:1329-1947, 1747-4477
On-line prístup:Získať plný text
Tagy: Pridať tag
Žiadne tagy, Buďte prvý, kto otaguje tento záznam!
Popis
Shrnutí:An increasingly frequent dilemma in restorative dentistry is the question of whether to retain a badly damaged tooth and restore it, or to remove and possibly replace it. Given the ethical difficulties inherent in testing this question, it is unlikely that we will ever see a properly designed clinical trial that will provide an answer. One of the most strongly debated components of this question is whether endodontic treatment and restoration can compete with a dental implant‐borne prosthesis in terms of longevity and success. In the current paper, the authors will attempt to: (i) answer this question based on our current understanding of the dental literature; and (ii) provide practitioners with guidelines that might be applied to their daily practices.
Bibliografia:ArticleID:AEJ019
istex:2FFC84A66A9ED967CA504DB94106ECFDF04E5496
ark:/67375/WNG-NLJ40TFD-K
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
ObjectType-Review-3
content type line 23
ISSN:1329-1947
1747-4477
DOI:10.1111/j.1747-4477.2006.00019.x