Entrar/Registro  
INICIO ENGLISH
 
Odovtos - International Journal of Dental Sciences
   
MENÚ

Contenido por año, Vol. y Num.

Índice de este artículo

Información General

Instrucciones para Autores

Mensajes al Editor

Directorio






>Revistas >Odovtos - International Journal of Dental Sciences >Año 2016, No. 1E


Chan RJ, Murillo AF
La clase II de Angle en el tratamiento protésico. Limitaciones e inconvenientes funcionales
Odovtos-Int J Dent Sc 2016; 18 (1E)

Idioma: Inglés
Referencias bibliográficas: 16
Paginas: 27-34
Archivo PDF: 753.84 Kb.


Texto completo




RESUMEN

Las relaciones intermaxilares de los pacientes clase II Angle, tienen limitaciones e inconvenientes, que impiden alcanzar objetivos protésicos tanto funcionales como estéticos en el tratamiento Dental.


Palabras clave: Clase II Angle y desórdenes temporo mandibulares, Clase II Angle y prótesis dental removible, Clase II Angle oclusión dental.


REFERENCIAS

  1. Rodrigues-Garcia Renata et al. (1998).Effects of Major Class II Occlusal Corrections on Temporomandibular Signs and Symptoms Jour. Orofacial Pain; 12 -192.

  2. Kinzinger Gero et al (2008). Class II Treatment in Adults: Comparing Camouflage Orthodontics, Dentofacial Orthopedics and Orthognathic Surgery ¨C A Cephalometric Study to Evaluate Various Therapeutic Effects, Jour. Orofac Orthop; 69:63¨C91.

  3. Georgiakaki I. et al (2003). Evaluation of orthodontic treatment outcome of Angle Class II, division 1 malocclusion by means of the PAR, IndeHellenic Orthodontic Review, Vol. 6.

  4. Luther F (2007). TMD and occlusion part II. Damned if we don¡¯t? Functional occlusal problems: TMD epidemiology in a wider context. British Dental Journal; 202: E3

  5. Tsukiyama Y. et al (2001). An evidencebased assessment of occlusal adjustment as a treatment for temporomandibular disorders Jour. Prosthet Dent, Vol. 86, ¡í 1, p¨¢g. 57-66.

  6. Busato Mauro C. et al (2009). Compensatory canine angulation in angle Class II and III patient. Braz Oral Res; 23(3):281-7.

  7. Marques Leandro Silva et al (2008). Class II division 1 malocclusion with severe overbite: cephalometric evaluation of the effects of orthodontic Treatment World J Orthod; 9: 319¨C328.

  8. Davies, S. et al. (2001) Good occlusal practice in removable prosthodontics. Brit. Dent Jour. 191(9):491-4.

  9. Sofou, A et al (1993). Using cephalometry to evaluate maxillomandibular relationships in complete denture construction. Int. Jour. Prostho., Nov-Dec; 6 (6): 540-5.

  10. Makzoume, J. (2007). Variations in rest vertical dimension: effects of headrestin edentulous patients. Jour. Gen. Dent. Jul- Aug; 55(4): 316-9.

  11. Javedious Office of Medical Application of Research. (1997) Technology assessment of conference statement: management of temporomandibulardisorders. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology and Endodontics, 83, 177, April, 29¨CMay 1.

  12. Wilson J, et al (2000).Condylar repositioning in mandibular retrusion. Jour. Prosth. Dentis., 84 (6): 612-6.

  13. Pintaudi V, et al. (2003). Analysis of the condyle/fossa relationship before and after prosthetic rehabilitation with maxillary complete denture and mandibular removable partial denture Jour. Prosthe. Dentis. Vol. 89, ¡í 5.

  14. The academy of Prosthodontics (2005). Glossary prosthodontics terms. Jour. Prosth. Dent, Vol 94, 1, 1-83.

  15. Kirveskari P. (1999) .Assessment of occlusal stability by measuring contact, time and centric slide, Jour. Oral Rehab, Vol 26, 10, 763-766.

  16. Kumagai H, (1999) et al. Occlusal force distribution on the dental arch during, various levels of clenching. Jour. Oral Reha, Vol 26, 12, 932-935.



>Revistas >Odovtos - International Journal of Dental Sciences >Año2016, No. 1E
 

· Indice de Publicaciones 
· ligas de Interes 






       
Derechos Resevados 2019