English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Success in treating consecutive missing second premolar, first molar, and second molar, may depend upon how the third molar is used as an abutment. Our department tested the third molar as an abutment for such removable partial denture appliances as attachments and telescopic crowns.This report deals with the effects of these appliances on third molars having short vertical coronal lengths. Retention strengths of the following were measured and compared;1) Angles of the contacting wall surfaces of two primary crowns both set at 2 degrees, with different mesial and distal wall lengths labelled S and M.2) I-C attachment, 202 EL, Ipsoclip 783 C, and a telescopic crown where a horizontal pin was placed in the axial surface.3) Battesti 1183, Conod 1071, and Ceka 723.Results of the telescopic crowns in condition 1 showed the retention strength to be S=500g and M=860g, and that of the I-C attachment, Ipsoclip, and horizontal pin was720 g, 800g, and 740 g respectively. A retention modifier instrument was used to control the retention strength of the Battesti, Conod, Ceka, and horizontal pin telescopic crowns to its recommended strength of between 500-1, 000g.

Clinical investigations on the use of the third molar as an abutment tooth for removable partial denture.