ABSTRACT
Objetivo: avaliar, por meio de extensometria, a infl uência da flange do implante de titânio na deformação superficial do osso. Material e métodos: um bloco de poliuretano simulando um osso tipo I mais corticalizado e menos medular (40 PCF) recebeu um implante de hexágono externo intraoral, sem flange 3,75 mm x 8,5 mm (G1) e um implante de hexágono externo extraoral, com flange 3,75 mm x 8 mm (G2). Em seguida, foram instalados componentes standard com 2 mm de altura de cinta metálica e cilindros metálicos para restauração provisória. Dois extensômetros lineares foram colados na superfície do bloco (mesial e distal de cada implante), e uma carga axial de 100 Ncm em uma máquina de ensaio universal foi aplicada, com cinco medições de microdeformação (µÎµ) para cada implante. Os dados foram submetidos ao teste Shapiro-Wilk para verifi car a homogenidade dos dados e em seguida ao teste t Student. Resultados: as médias e desvios-padrão obtidos foram: G1: 148,2 ± 5,84 e G2: 92,4 ± 11,24 µÆ, com diferença estatística significativa entre os grupos. Conclusão: os implantes extraorais tiveram melhor comportamento mecânico para as cargas axiais do que os implantes intraorais, sendo que a flange melhorou a distribuição da carga na superfície do bloco de poliuretano.
Objectives: to evaluate, by means of extensometry, the influence of the titanium implant flange on the superficial deformation of the bone. Material and methods: a polyurethane block simulating a more corticalized and less spinal type I bone (40 PCF) received an external intraoral hexagon implant with a 3.75 mm x 8.5 mm fl ange (G1) and an extraoral external hexagon implant, with flange 3.75 mm x 8 mm (G2). Subsequently, standard components with 2 mm high of metal strap and metal cylinders were installed for temporary restoration. Two linear strain gauges were glued to the surface of the block (mesial and distal of each implant), and an axial load of 100N in a universal test machine was applied with five microdemorphometric measurements (µÎµ) for each implant. The data were submitted to the Shapiro-Wilks test to verify the homogeneity of the data and then to the t-student test. Results: the means and standard deviations obtained were: G1: 148.2 ± 5.84 and G2: 92.4 ± 11.24 µÎµ, with signifi cant statistical difference between the groups. Conclusion: extraoral implants had better mechanical behavior for axial loads than intraoral implants, and the flange improved the load distribution on the surface of the polyurethane block.
Subject(s)
Humans , Comparative Study , Maxillofacial Prosthesis , Maxillofacial Prosthesis Implantation , Osseointegration , Prostheses and ImplantsABSTRACT
Craniofacial implants are being increasingly used to treat patients with sequelae of oncological resections, trauma, and congenital deficiencies, among other issues. The aim of this investigation was to establish the minimum and maximum bone dimensions present in the most used places for the insertion of craniofacial implants. A descriptive study was designed analyzing 40 human skulls using cone-beam computed tomography; in the volumetric reconstruction the points most often used in clinical investigations for the insertion of implants were selected, representing the orbital, perinasal, zygomatic bone and periauricular regions, measuring the distance between the cortical bones on the sagittal, axial and coronal planes; comparisons between gender and with other investigations with a similar aim were also made. In the supraorbital area, values of 7.92+/-1.82 mm were found and in the lateral area values of 7.54+/-0.98 mm, allowing the placement of implants 5 or 6 mm in length. In the area of the zygomatic bone, dimensions of 10.4+/-2.35 mm were obtained, allowing the placement of implants 8 mm in length. In the periauricular area values were obtained of 2.93+/-0.55 mm in the superior region and 3.1+/-0.7 mm in the inferior region, whereas in the perinasal area implants 4 mm in length can be placed. We concluded that the craniomaxillofacial bone structure presents acceptable widths for the installation of implants; the periauricular region presents lower dimensions, with the possibility of intracranial communication in areas above the external auditory meatus...
Los implantes craneofaciales están siendo cada vez más utilizado para tratar a pacientes con secuelas de resecciones oncológicas, traumatismos, y deficiencias congénitas, entre otras. El objetivo de esta investigación fue establecer las dimensiones óseas mínimas y máximas presentes en los lugares más utilizados para la inserción de implantes craneofaciales. Se diseño un estudio descriptivo que analizó 40 cráneos humanos utilizando cono Tomografía computarizada Cone-Beam; en la reconstrucción volumétrica fueron seleccionados los puntos más utilizados en las investigaciones clínicas para la inserción de implantes, que representan la orbital, hueso perinasal, hueso cigomático y regiones periauriculares. La medición de la distancia entre los huesos corticales en los planos sagital, axial y coronal, y las comparaciones entre el sexo y otras investigaciones con el mismo objetivo fueron realizadas. En el área supraorbital, se encontraron valores de 7,92 +/- 1,82 mm y en las áreas laterales de 7,54 +/- 0,98 mm, lo que permite la colocación de implantes de 5 o 6 mm de longitud. En el área del hueso cigomático se obtuvieron,dimensiones de 10,4 +/- 2,35 mm, permitiendo la colocación de los implantes de 8 mm de longitud. En la región periauricular se obtuvieron valores de 2,93 +/- 0,55 mm en la región superior y 3,1 +/- 0,7 mm en la región inferior, mientras que en lo zona perinasal se puede colocar implantes de 4 mm de longitud. Llegamos a la conclusión de que la estructura de los huesos craneomaxilofaciales presenta anchos aceptables para la instalación de implantes; la región periauricular presenta menores dimensiones, con la posibilidad de comunicación intracraneal en zonas sobre el meato auditivo externo...