I'm not sure my uncle lives in the real world either, but there ya go!
    Thanks!

Steve

    Thanks WB!

Steve

Geographical nomenclature, the wrath of dentistry.

I think I understand what W_B is talking about with his "component partial".
Imagine a small unilateral cast partial (AKA Nesbit in some places) replacing
only the teeth distal to the right cuspid. Once you picture that, imagine the
food line (scribed dam) area as a finishing line with mesh or loops extending
from it to attach the casting to the rest of the prosthesis which looks more
like a complete acrylic overdenture. (Are we talking about the same thing W_B?)

Advantages are you gain the best of both worlds, precision of the partial,
adaptability of the complete denture. From what you describe, I would not do one
of these on the upper, unless I had an excellent lab since the placement and
contouring of the finishing lines will make or break the case.  I would do
something similar, described below. If on the other hand, you were describing a
similar situation on the lower, I would do a "component partial".

The mere mention of considering a FUD, leads me to believe that the 3 remaining
teeth have a questionable prognosis in the long run. In this situation I would
look at using cast clasps connected together by either a full palate meshwork,
or connected by something that gets buried in the acrylic. (called cast clasps
and connectors locally) The clasps can be full cast clasps or combination of
cast and wrought. Tying the clasps and rests together give you the advantages of
a cast partial. If you lose a tooth, cutting off the metal and adding is
simple - keeping your other components intact. The key advantage in doing this
is the ability to control guide planes in metal. Remember for every guide plane
you have clasping can be reduced by about 25%. 3 remaining teeth gives you a
potential for 6 guide planes.

If you had 1 overdenture attachment, with some guide planes you could get by
with 1 well placed wrought clasp. As for the attachment, I suggest you look at
the "locator" attachment. It is made by Zest Anchors and comes in many flavours;
Root, Implant and Bar and different angles. Like the ERA it comes in different
strengths. Unlike the ERA it can accommodate a 40 degree divergence in the
extreme. Here is a link:
http://www.zestanchors.com/index.asp?file=articles
some online instructions:
http://www.preat.com/locr_inst.htm

and this link compares ERA to Locator:
http://www.zestanchors.com/articles/LOCATOR%20vs%20ERA%20UPDATE.htm
or
http://tinyurl.com/4g5v5

I personally have not used this attachment yet. I have yet to find a case that
is suitable and get one of the dentists that I work with to use them. I have two
coming up that I will be pushing for. Affections for the ERA within the dental
community locally are similar to those I see here on s.m.d. I do know that the
people that have switched to them love them (resolves some issues with the ERA).
The last convention I was at, the Branemark table had the Locator attachment
with all their stuff, even though it was not their own (indicating they believed
in it.).

Hope this is what you are looking for Steven.

Roy