Dental displacement in complete dentures influenced by different flask types and polymerization cycles

Abstract This study evaluated the dental displacement in dentures included in different flasks and processed by the Australian cycle modified or by microwave. Metal pins were placed on the teeth as reference for measurements: a) Incisal edge of maxillary and mandibular central incisors, buccal cusp of maxillary and mandibular vestibular first premolars, and mesiobuccal maxillary and mandibular cusps of second molars; b) Incisor to incisor, premolar to premolar and molar to molar; c) Left incisor to left molar and right incisor to right molar, and d) Vertical. Dentures were divided according to flasks (n=10): G1- Metal; G2- HH bimaxillary metal; G3-Microwaves; G4- HH bimaxillary microwaves. For G1 and G2, polymerization at 65ºC/30 min, flame quenched for 30 min, heating at 65ºC/30 min, boiling water for 1 h. For G3 and G4, microwave (20 min/140 W and 5 min/560 W). Comparator microscope with digital camera and analytical unit assessed the measurements before and after denture polymerization. The final distance was made subtracting the distance before the denture processing from the distance of the dental displacement after processing. The value of the difference was submitted to 2-way ANOVA, considering the flask type and denture type. Maxillary denture showed greater displacement when compared to mandibular denture. Flask types and interaction with denture types showed similar difference between before and after polymerization. In conclusion, displacement promoted by flask types in dentures cured by polymerization cycles promoted similar effect on the distance between teeth. Greater value for distance between teeth occurred for maxillary denture.

Resumo O objetivo neste estudo foi avaliar o deslocamento dental em próteses totais incluídas em diferentes tipos de muflas e polimerizadas pelo ciclo australiano ou por micro ondas. Pinos metálicos foram colocados nos dentes como pontos de referência para as medidas: a) Borda incisal dos incisivos centrais maxilares e mandibulares, cúspide vestibular dos primeiros pré molares maxilares e mandibulares e cúspides mésiovestibulares dos segundos molares maxilares e mandibulares; b) Distâncias látero-laterais incisivo a incisivo, pré-molar a pré-molar e molar a molar; c) Distâncias horizontais anteroposterior incisivo esquerdo a molar esquerdo e incisivo direito a molar direito, e d) Vertical. As próteses foram separadas de acordo com o tipo de mufla (n=20): G1- Metálica; G2-HH bi-maxilar metálica; G3- Micro-ondas; G4- HH bi-maxilar micro ondas. Ciclo de polimerização para G1 e G2, água a 65ºC por 30 minutos, aquecimento interrompido por 30 minutos, reaquecimento a 65ºC por 30 minutos, seguido de água fervente por 1 hora. Para G3 e G4, micro ondas (20 minutos a 140 W e 5 minutos a 560 W). As medidas foram avaliadas com microscópio comparador linear. A distância final entre os dentes foi obtida subtraindo o valor da distância antes do processamento da prótese do valor da distância resultante do deslocamento dentário após o processamento. A diferença obtida entre essas distâncias foi submetida à ANOVA de 2 fatores, considerando como variáveis tipo de mufla e tipo de prótese. A prótese maxilar apresentou maior deslocamento dental quando comparada à mandibular. Os tipos de muflas e a interação com os tipos de próteses mostraram movimentos dentais similares antes e depois da polimerização. Em conclusão, o deslocamento dental promovido por diferentes tipos de frascos em próteses curadas por diferentes ciclos de polimerização promoveu efeito semelhante na alteração da distância entre os dentes. Maior valor para a mudança de distância entre os dentes ocorreu na prótese maxilar.

Photoelastic and finite element stress analysis reliability for implant-supported system stress investigation

Aim: To compare the reliability between photoelastic and finite element (FE) analyses by evaluating the effect of different marginal misfit levels on the stresses generated on two different implant-supported systems using conventional and short implants. Methods: Two photoelastic models were obtained: model C with two conventional implants (4.1×11 mm); and model S with a conventional and a short implant (5×6 mm). Three-unit CoCr frameworks were fabricated simulating a superior first pre-molar (P) to first molar (M) fixed dental prosthesis. Different levels of misfit (µm) were selected based on the misfit average of 10 frameworks obtained by the single-screw test protocol: low (<20), medium (>20 and <40) and high (>40). Stress levels and distribution were measured by photoelastic analysis. A similar situation of the in vitro assay was designed and simulated by the in silico analysis. Maximum and minimum principal strain were recorded numerically and color-coded for the models. Von Mises Stress was obtained for the metallic components. Results: Photoelasticity and FE analyses showed similar tendency where the increase of misfit generates higher stress levels despite of the implant design. The short implant showed lower von Mises stress values; however, it presented stresses around its full length for the in vitro and in silico analysis. Also, model S showed higher µstrain values for all simulated misfit levels. The type of implant did not affect the stresses around pillar P. Conclusions: Photoelasticity and FEA are reliable methodologies presenting similarity for the investigation of the biomechanical behavior of implant-supported rehabilitations