Restorative therapy of erosion

When substance loss caused by erosive tooth wear reaches a certain degree, oral rehabilitation becomes necessary. Prior to the most recent decade, the severely eroded dentition could only be rehabilitated by the provision of extensive crown and bridge work or removable overdentures. As a result of the improvements in composite restorative materials, and in adhesive techniques, it has become possible to rehabilitate eroded dentitions in a less invasive manner. However, even today advanced erosive destruction requires the placement of more extensive restorations such as ceramic veneers or overlays and crowns. It has to be kept in mind that the etiology of the erosive lesions needs to be determined in order to halt the disease, otherwise the erosive process will continue to destroy tooth substance. This overview presents aspects concerning the restorative materials as well as the treatment options available to rehabilitate patients with erosion, from minimally invasive direct composite reconstructions to adhesively retained all-ceramic restorations. Restorative treatment is dependent on individual circumstances and the perceived needs and concerns of the patient. Long-term success is only possible when the cause is eliminated. In all situations, the restorative preparations have to follow the principles of minimally invasive treatment.

Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Dental erosion

There is some evidence that dental erosion is steadily spreading. To diagnose erosion, dental professionals have to rely on clinical appearance, as there is no device available to detect it. Adequate preventive measures can only be initiated if the different risk factors and potential interactions between them are known. When substance loss, caused by erosive tooth wear, reaches a certain degree, oral rehabilitation becomes necessary. Prior to the most recent decade, the severely eroded dentition could only be rehabilitated by the provision of extensive crown and bridgework or removable dentures. As a result of the improvements in composite restorative materials and in adhesive techniques, it has become possible to rehabilitate eroded dentitions in a less invasive manner.

Optimal number of oral implants for fixed reconstructions: a review of the literature.

BACKGROUND AND AIM So far there is little evidence from randomised clinical trials (RCT) or systematic reviews on the preferred or best number of implants to be used for the support of a fixed prosthesis in the edentulous maxilla or mandible, and no consensus has been reached. Therefore, we reviewed articles published in the past 30 years that reported on treatment outcomes for implant-supported fixed prostheses, including survival of implants and survival of prostheses after a minimum observation period of 1 year. MATERIAL AND METHODS MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched to identify eligible studies. Short and long-term clinical studies were included with prospective and retrospective study designs to see if relevant information could be obtained on the number of implants related to the prosthetic technique. Articles reporting on implant placement combined with advanced surgical techniques such as sinus floor elevation (SFE) or extensive grafting were excluded. Two reviewers extracted the data independently. RESULTS A primary search was broken down to 222 articles. Out of these, 29 studies comprising 26 datasets fulfilled the inclusion criteria. From all studies, the number of planned and placed implants was available. With two exceptions, no RCTs were found, and these two studies did not compare different numbers of implants per prosthesis. Eight studies were retrospective; all the others were prospective. Fourteen studies calculated cumulative survival rates for 5 and more years. From these data, the average survival rate was between 90% and 100%. The analysis of the selected articles revealed a clear tendency to plan 4 to 6 implants per prosthesis. For supporting a cross-arch fixed prosthesis in the maxilla, the variation is slightly greater. CONCLUSIONS In spite of a dispersion of results, similar outcomes are reported with regard to survival and number of implants per jaw. Since the 1990s, it was proven that there is no need to install as many implants as possible in the available jawbone. The overwhelming majority of articles dealing with standard surgical procedures to rehabilitate edentulous jaws uses 4 to 6 implants.

Restorative therapy of erosive lesions.

When substance loss caused by erosive tooth wear reaches a certain degree, oral rehabilitation becomes necessary. Until some 20 years ago, the severely eroded dentition could only be rehabilitated by the provision of extensive crown and bridge work or removable overdentures. As a result of the improvements in resin composite restorative materials, and in adhesive techniques, it has become possible to rehabilitate eroded dentitions in a less invasive manner. However, even today advanced erosive destruction requires the placement of more extensive restorations such as overlays and crowns. It has to be kept in mind that the etiology of the erosive lesions needs to be determined in order to halt the disease, otherwise the erosive process will continue to destroy tooth substance. This overview presents aspects concerning the restorative materials as well as the treatment options available to rehabilitate patients with erosive tooth wear, from minimally invasive direct composite reconstructions to adhesively retained all-ceramic restorations. Restorative treatment is dependent on individual circumstances and the perceived needs and concerns of the patient. Long-term success is only possible when the cause is eliminated. In all situations, the restorative preparations have to follow the principles of minimally invasive treatment.

Sustainable Pasture Management : LforS learning and simulation game

Three teams consisting of 2 to 5 persons each play the game. Each team represents a farm. Each team decides jointly on its strategy. In annual meetings in winter, the farm teams jointly discuss, evaluate and decide on how to proceed and actions to be taken. The farms make use of three different pasture areas (village pasture, intensive pasture and summer pasture) for grazing their livestock. The carrying capacity of each pasture area is different and varies according to the season. In each season, the farms have to decide on how many livestock units to graze on which pasture. Overgrazing and pasture degradation occur if the total number of livestock units exceeds the carrying capacity of a specific pasture area. Overgrazing results in a reduction of pasture productivity. To diversify and improve their livelihood strategy farms can make individual investments to increase productivity at the farm level, eg. in fodder production or in income generating activities. At the community level, collective investments can be made which may influence livestock and household economy, e.g. rehabilitate and improve pasture productivity, improve living conditions on remote pastures etc. Events occurring in the course of the game represent different types of (risk) factors such as meteorology, market, politics etc. that may positively or negatively influence livestock production and household economy. A sustainable management of pastures requires that farms actively regulate the development of their herds, that they take measures to prevent pasture degradation and to improve pasture productivity, and that they find a balance between livestock economy and other productive activities. The game has a double aim: a) each farm aims at its economic success and prosperity, and b) the three farm teams jointly have to find and implement strategies for a sustainable use of pasture areas.