Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2018; 12(03): 375-379
DOI: 10.4103/ejd.ejd_232_18
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

Different pontic design for porcelain fused to metal fixed dental prosthesis: Contemporary guidelines and practice by general dental practitioners

Syed Murtaza Raza Kazmi
1   Department of Prosthodontics, Fatima Jinnah Dental College, Karachi, Pakistan
,
Zahid Iqbal
2   Department of Prosthodontics, Fatima Memorial Hospital College of Dentistry, Lahore, Pakistan
,
Muhammad Usman Muneer
3   Department of Prosthodontics, Lahore Medical and Dental College, Lahore, Pakistan
,
Samiya Riaz
4   Department of Paediatric Dentistry, School of Dental Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kelantan, Malaysia
,
Muhammad Sohail Zafar
5   Department of Restorative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Taibah University, Madinah, Munawwarah, Saudi Arabia
6   Department of Dental Materials, Islamic International Dental College, Riphah International University, Islamabad, Pakistan
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
16 September 2019 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Objective: The current study aimed to assess the knowledge and practice of pontic design selection by the general dental practitioners (GDPs) in the light of contemporary guidelines. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted among the GDPs of Karachi. A questionnaire was designed to collect data from 100 GDPs. The questionnaire included general/demographic information (practitioner's education, experience, and place of practice) and an average number of fixed prosthesis constructed by the GDP. The questionnaire was further categorized to evaluate the knowledge/practice of pontic design selection and latest recommendations. Results: For the maxillary anterior segment, the ridge lap pontic was the most common (32%) followed by the modified ridge lap (28%). In the maxillary posterior segment, the ridge lap pontic was the most common (37%) followed by sanitary design (34%). For the mandibular anterior segment, the modified ridge lap (50%) was the most common followed by ridge lap pontic (17%). In case of the mandibular posterior segment, the sanitary design (34%) was the most common followed by ridge lap pontic (30%). Conclusions: The pontic design selection for the fixed prosthesis is a neglected domain. The contemporary guidelines are not followed with full spirit by the GDPs leading to wide variations in the pontic design selection.

Key words:

Fixed prosthesis - pontics - porcelain fused to metal bridges
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Shillingburg HT, Sather DA, Wilson EL, Cain J, Mitchell D, Blanco L. et al Fundamentals of Fixed Prosthodontics. Surrey, United Kingdom: Quintessence Publishing Company; 2012
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 2 Cavazos Jr. E. Tissue response to fixed partial denture pontics. J Prosthet Dent 1968; 20: 143-53
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Parkinson CF, Schaberg TV. Pontic design of posterior fixed partial prostheses: Is it a microbial misadventure?. J Prosthet Dent 1984; 51: 51-4
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Behrend DA. The design of multiple pontics. J Prosthet Dent 1981; 46: 634-8
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Howard WW, Ueno H, Pruitt CO. Standards of pontic design. J Prosthet Dent 1982; 47: 493-5
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Hood JA, Farah JW, Craig RG. Stress and deflection of three different pontic designs. J Prosthet Dent 1975; 33: 54-9
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Johnston JF, Phillips RW, Dykema RW. Modern Practice in Crown and Bridge Prosthodontics. Philadelphia, USA: W.B. Saunders Company; 1971
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 8 Hirshberg SM. The relationship of oral hygiene to embrasure and pontic design – A preliminary study. J Prosthet Dent 1972; 27: 26-38
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Rosenstiel SF, Land MF, Fujimoto J. Contemporary Fixed Prosthodontics-E-Book. Sr. Louis, Missouri, USA: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2015
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 10 Tripodakis A, Konstantinidis A. Tissue response under hyperpressure from convex pontics. Hell Stomatol Chron 1989; 33: 159-64
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Singh S, Singh N. Treatment planning for fixed partial dentures. Int J Oral Health Med Sci 2015; 2: 99-101
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 12 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Kang HS, Lee SY. Immediate fixed partial denture after tooth extraction in patients with systemic diseases: A clinical report. J Adv Prosthodont 2016; 8: 511-4
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Supamitsatian T, Leevailoj C. Restoration of maxillary anterior bridges with ovate pontics design: A case report. Mahidol Dent J 2014; 34: 70-81
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 15 Mainjot AK, Schajer GS, Vanheusden AJ, Sadoun MJ. Residual stress measurement in veneering ceramic by hole-drilling. Dent Mater 2011; 27: 439-44
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Löfgren N, Larsson C, Mattheos N, Janda M. Influence of misfit on the occurrence of veneering porcelain fractures (chipping) in implant-supported metal-ceramic fixed dental prostheses: An in vitro pilot trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017; 28: 1381-7
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Tahir S, Bashir A, Rafique A, Khan J. Factors that support female dentists in pursuing their profession in Pakistan. Biomedica 2017; 33: 107-12
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 18 Tahir S, Bashir A, Khan J. Factors that hinder female dentists in pursuing their career. Biomedica 2014; 30: 1-6
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 19 Berry J, Nesbit M, Saberi S, Petridis H. Communication methods and production techniques in fixed prosthesis fabrication: A UK based survey. Part 1: Communication methods. Br Dent J 2014; 217: E12
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Lynch CD, Allen PF. Quality of communication between dental practitioners and dental technicians for fixed prosthodontics in Ireland. J Oral Rehabil 2005; 32: 901-5
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Zitzmann NU, Marinello CP, Berglundh T. The ovate pontic design: A histologic observation in humans. J Prosthet Dent 2002; 88: 375-80
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Tjan AH. A sanitary “arc-fixed partial denture”: Concept and technique of pontic design. J Prosthet Dent 1983; 50: 338-41
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Edelhoff D, Spiekermann H, Yildirim M. A review of esthetic pontic design options. Quintessence Int 2002; 33: 736-46
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Porter Jr. CB. Anterior pontic design: A logical progression. J Prosthet Dent 1984; 51: 774-6
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Kim TH, Cascione D, Knezevic A. Simulated tissue using a unique pontic design: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2009; 102: 205-10
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Gade E. Hygienic problems of fixed restorations. Int Dent J 1963; 13: 318
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 27 Ganani RP, Mistry G, Shetty O. The phoenix pontic: A review article. Health Talk 2012; 4: 45-7
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 28 Spear FM. Maintenance of the interdental papilla following anterior tooth removal. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 1999; 11: 21-8
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar