From the previous discussion (bearing in mind differences in mental images standing for the equivalent words in different languages and context dependence of equivalents) it may be righteously presumed that one can hardly find truly full and universal equivalents for a word. However, as you all know practical translation dates back to ancient times and since then translations are commonly regarded and used as full-pledged substitutes of the relevant source texts. That is why despite contradicting theoretical evidence full equivalence is commonly accepted as a convenient makeshift.
This rule applies both to individual words and their regular combinations. Speaking generally, translation equivalents of all words and word combinations one finds in a good dictionary are full because the translation practice reflected in dictionaries shows them as complete substitutes universally accepted by the speakers' community of the target language (i. e. as pragmatically equivalent).
Of them the stylistically neutral words with reference meanings25 (terms, geographical and proper names, words denoting physical objects and processes) are more likely to have full translation equivalents because semantic and pragmatic parts of their meaning are less ambiguous.