Journal of IMAB - Annual Proceeding (Scientific Papers)
Publisher: Peytchinski, Gospodin Iliev
ISSN: 1312 773X (Online)
Issue: 2016, vol. 22, issue 1
Subject Area: Dental Medicine
Pages: 1023-1028
DOI: 10.5272/jimab.2016221.1023
Published online: 25 January 2016

J of IMAB 2016 Jan-Mar;22(1):1023-1028
Sherif I. Shaqiri1,2Corresponding Autor, Kaltrina Sh. Beqiri1,3.
1) Private Clinic for Prosthetic Dentistry “Protetika AG”- Tetovo, Macedonia.
2) Lecturer in School of Dentistry, Faculty of Medical Sciences, State University of Tetovo, Macedonia.
3) Student in School of Dentistry, Faculty of Medical Sciences, State University of Tetovo, Macedonia.

Purpose: The aim of this paper is to analyze the odontometric values of elements by lateral metal ceramic dental bridges.
Material & Methods: For this goal there were observed and measured 455 elements from 151 patients.
The measurement was made with an instrument for precise measure (schubler), with precision of 0.1 mm.
The control group was compound from homolog natural teeth.
Results: The per cent of males with fixed metal ceramic prosthetic appliances is 62.25%, and the per cent of females with fixed metal ceramic prosthetic appliances is 37.75%.
The per cent of crowns and pontic elements by males with fixed metal ceramic prosthetic appliances is 61.48%, and the percent of crowns and pontic elements by females is 38.52%.
Conclusions:  The frequency of fixed metal ceramic prosthetic appliances and the frequency of pontic element and crowns in dental bridges of lateral sector evidently is higher by males than females.
 The total number of elements of lateral dental bridges by both jaws and both sexes gained as a result of our study shows statically suitable reports as a substitute for any two worked elements as abutment crowns in average are two.
 The occlusion cervical dimension of pontic elements in our study is higher that natural teeth for 23.49%. This situation affects evidently to increase strength and sustainability of the bridge and at the same time the masticator pressure will be distributed in the appropriate manner.   
In vestibule oral dimension the pontic elements of our study are for 8.82% narrower than natural teeth. Value that influence in protection of dental bridge from deformation and breaking.
In mesio distal dimension the mean value of length of pontic elements in our study is for 16.13% lower than natural teeth. This situation will significantly influenced the strength of the bridge and will increase its masticator efficiency.
Taking onto consideration these odontometric parameters in the construction of the pontic of fixed metal ceramic lateral dental bridge, there will be prolonged the longevity of prosthetic appliances, will be increased their preventive effect, and positively will influence on patients' oral hygiene.
Based to the value of T-test, and according to the value of coefficient of probability (p<0.05), we can say that by our results the statistically significance is important and not by chance.

Key words: Dental bridge, variables, analysis, measurement, control group, mean value,

- Download FULL TEXT /PDF 820 KB/
Please cite this article in PubMed Style or AMA (American Medical Association) Style:

Correspondence to: Dr. Sherif Shaqiri, Private Clinic for Prosthetic Dentistry “Protetika AG”- Tetovo; Str. Kiro Ristoski DRNC No. 39, 1200 Tetovo, Macedonia; E-mail:

1. Shaqiri Sh. Comparative analysis of metal-ceramic elements in lateral dental bridges. Master Thesis: University of Tirana 2006.
2. Simat S, Mostarcic K, Matijevic J, Simeon P, Grget KR, Krmek SJ. A comparison of oral status of the fourth-year students of various colleges at the University of Zagreb. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2011;45(3):177-183.
3.  Ingle NA, Chaly PE, Zohara CK. Oral health related quality of life in adult population attending the outpatient department of a hospital in Chennai, India. J Int Oral Health. 2010 Dec;2(4):45-56.
4. Shillinburg HT, Hobo S, Whitsett LD, Jacobi R, Brackett SE. An Introduction to Fixed Prosthodontics. In: Fundamentals of Fixed Prosthodontics. Third Edition. Quintessence Publishung Co, Inc. 1997; Chapter 1, p.1-9.
5. Edelhoff D, Spiekermann H, Yildirim M. A review of esthetic pontic design options. Quintessence Int. 2002 Nov-Dec;33(10):736-746. [PubMed].
6. Raj V. Esthetic paradigms in the interdisciplinary management of maxillary anterior dentition-a review. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2013 Oct;25(5):295-304. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
7. Kissov HK, Todorova BP, Popova EP. Correlation between over contouring of fixed prosthetic constructions and accumulation of dental plaque. Folia Med (Plovdiv). 2001; 43(1-2):80-83. [PubMed]
8. Rezaei SM, Heidarifar H, Arezodar FF, Azary A, Mokhtarykhoee S. Influence of Connector Width on the Stress Distribution of Posterior Bridges under Loading. J Dent (Tehran). 2011 Spring; 8(2):67–74. [PubMed]
9. Morr T. Understanding the esthetic evaluation for success. J Calif  Dent Assoc. 2004 Feb;32(2):153-160. [PubMed]
10. Tjan  AH. A sanitary “arc-fixed partial denture”. Concept and Technique of pontic design. J Prosthet Dent. 1983 Sep; 50(3):338-341. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
11. Ivanis T, Predanic-Gasparac H, Stalec J. [Distribution of prosthetic appliances in young people.] [in Croatian] Acta Stomatol Croat. 1988; 22(4):279-89. [PubMed]
12. Greenberg JR, Bogert MC. A dental esthetic checklist for treatment planning in esthetic dentistry. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2010 Oct;31(8):630-634,636,638. [PubMed]
13. Alhouri N, Watts DC, McCord JF, Smith PW. Mathematical analysis of tooth and restoration contour using image analysis. Dent Mater. 2004 Nov;20(9):893-899. [PubMed]
14. Langlade M. Diagnostic orthodontique.  Maloine SA, Paris 1981.
15. Acheff J. Handbuch der Zahnheilkunde Makroschopische Anatomie, Band 1, Urban Z Schwanzenberg, Berlin – Wien 1920.
16. Sicher H, Du Brull El. Oral Anatomy. St. Louis: CV Mosby Co 1975.
17. De Yong Et. Anatomie der Zahne und des Gebisses. Verlag Neuer Merkur GMBH, Muenchen – Berlin 1958.
18. Mehulic K, Baucic I, Catovic A, Zivko-Babic J, Stipetic J. Poredbena rasclamba dimenzija meduclanova lateralnih mostova. Acta Stomatol Croat. 1988; 22(1):19-27.
19. Rosenstein HE, Myers ML, Graser GN, Jarvis RH. Comparison of compressive strength of solid and hollow pontic design for ceramometal fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 1987 Jun;57(6):693-696. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
20. Stumppel LJ 3rd. The natural tooth pontic; simplified. J Calif Dent Assoc. 2004 Mar;32(3):257-260. [PubMed]
21. Kallay J. [Dental Antropology]. Publishing Institute of the Yugoslav Academy. Zagreb. 1974. [in Croatian].

Received: 27 June 2015
Published online: 25 January 2016

back to Online Journal