Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add filters








Year range
1.
Braz. dent. j ; 31(2): 127-134, Mar.-Apr. 2020. tab, graf
Article in English | LILACS, BBO | ID: biblio-1132279

ABSTRACT

Abstract The aim of this study was to assess the internal and vertical marginal fit of metallic copings to abutments and the fracture strength of different narrow diameter dental implant/abutments, either submitted to thermomechanical cycling or not. Sixty-four implant/abutments (n=16) were divided into 4 groups according to diameter and abutment type: G3.5-UAC (morse taper implant Ø3.5mm + universal abutment with beveled chamfer finish); G2.9-UAS (morse taper implant Ø2.9mm + universal abutment with shoulder finish); G2.8-AA (morse taper friction implant Ø2.8mm + anatomical abutment) and G2.5-HP (one-piece implant Ø2.5mm with indexed hexagonal platform). Each group was divided into two subgroups (n=8): submitted and not submitted to thermomechanical cycling (TMC). To assess internal and vertical marginal fit of metallic copings, the assemblies were scanned using microtomography (micro-CT) (n=5). The samples were subjected to the compressive strength test on a universal test machine. Group G3.5-UAC showed the highest marginal misfit regardless of TMC (p<0.05). All other groups were similar after TMC. Group G2.8-AA showed the lowest internal misfit both with and without TMC (p<0.05). Group G2.8-AA showed the highest fracture strength, similar only to G2.5-HP without TMC and G3.5-UAC with TMC. The type of abutment affects the internal and marginal fit of metallic copings and the anatomical abutment led to the best internal and marginal coping fit. The narrow diameter dental implant/abutments differ in terms of fracture strength, the strongest assembly was that composed by implant of type V grade titanium without internal threads (friction implant).


Resumo O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar a adaptação marginal e interna de cópings metálicos em pilares sobre implantes, e a resistência a fratura de diferentes conjuntos de implantes/pilares de diâmetro reduzido, submetidos à ciclagem termomecânica ou não. Sessenta e quatro implantes/pilares (n=16) foram divididos em 04 grupos de acordo com o tipo de pilar e diâmetro do implante: G3.5-UAC (implante cone morse Ø3.5mm + munhão universal com término em chanfro); G2.9-UAS (implante cone morse Ø2.9mm + munhão universal com término em ombro); G2.8-AA (implante cone morse friccional Ø2.8mm + munhão anatômico); e G2.5-HP (implante de corpo único de Ø2.5mm com plataforma hexagonal indexada). Cada grupo foi dividio em dois subgrupos (n=8): submetidos ou não à ciclagem termomecânica (TMC). As amostras foram escaneadas por microtomografia (micro-CT) para avaliar a adaptação interna e marginal vertical dos copings metálicos. As amostras foram submetidas à resistência à compressão em uma maquina de ensaios universal. O grupo G3.5-UAC apresentou os maiores valores de desadaptação marginal independentemente da TMC (p<0,05). Todos os outros grupos foram similares entre si após TMC. O grupo G2.8-AA demonstrou o menor desajuste interno independentemente de TMC (p<0,05). O grupo G2.8-AA demonstrou a maior resistência à fratura, similar apenas ao grupo G2.5-HP sem TMC e G3.5-UAC com TMC. O tipo de pilar influencia a adaptação interna e marginal vertical de copings metálicos. O grupo do pilar anatômico (sem entalhes na superfície) levou à melhor adaptação, enquanto o grupo com plataforma expandida hexagonal e os grupos com munhão universal (com entalhes na superfície) proporcionaram os maiores desajustes (especialmente com termino em chanfro). Os implantes/pilares de diâmetro reduzido diferem em termos de resistencia à fratura, sendo que o conjunto mais resistente foi aquele composto por titânio tipo V e sem roscas internas (implante friccional).


Subject(s)
Dental Implants , Titanium , Zirconium , Materials Testing , Dental Abutments , Dental Stress Analysis , Dental Implant-Abutment Design , Flexural Strength
2.
Actual. osteol ; 12(1): 47-56, 2016. ilus
Article in Spanish | LILACS, UNISALUD, BINACIS | ID: biblio-1380022

ABSTRACT

Las fracturas de stress son el resultado de la reiteración de cargas mecánicas en ciclos de intensidad, duración y frecuencia variables que, aplicadas como estímulos únicos, no serían suficientes para provocarlas. En líneas generales, el mecanismo propuesto para la generación de las fracturas de stress por fatiga es un desborde de la capacidad reparatoria de las microfracturas provocadas por las cargas de un exigente entorno mecánico, que corre a cargo de la remodelación ósea. Inicialmente fueron reportadas en el personal militar (en especial reclutas durante el período de instrucción) y luego en deportistas de diversas disciplinas que implican correr y/o saltar. Siendo esta la población primariamente en riesgo, se identificaron numerosos factores adicionales. En esta revisión se expondrán solamente aquellos de naturaleza endocrinometabólica y biomecánica. El síntoma inicial más frecuente de las fracturas por fatiga es el dolor focal, y su frecuencia es alta en los miembros inferiores. Se presenta al final de la actividad física, para luego extenderse a todo su curso y, finalmente, afectar también la deambulación diaria. El examen físico típicamente denota hipersensibilidad o dolor localizado sobre el área del hueso afectado, que a veces puede estar tumefacta. El diagnóstico se basa en las imágenes; la resonancia magnética nuclear es a de mayor sensibilidad y especificidad y la que permite un diagnóstico temprano, lo que es importante para prevenir un potencial progreso de la lesión a una fractura completa, osteosíntesis retardada o no unión, y necrosis ósea. (AU)


Stress fractures are the result of repeated cyclical loading whose intensity, duration and frequency are variable. These loads, applied as single stimuli, would not be enough to produce them. Overall, the proposed mechanism that generates fatigue fractures is an overflow in repair capacity, which is normally run by bone remodeling. They were first reported in military population (especially recruits during the training period) and later in athletes of various disciplines that involve running and / or jumping. This is primarily the population at risk. Other factors have been identified, only endocrine, metabolic and biomechanical will be discussed. The most common initial symptom of fatigue fractures is focal pain and frequency is high in the lower limbs. They appear at the end of physical activity, then spread throughou their course, and ultimately affect the daily ambulation. Physical examination typically shows hypersensitivity or localized pain on the area of the affected bone, which can sometimes be swollen. Diagnosis is based on images. Nuclear magnetic resonance has the highest sensitivity and specificity and allows early diagnosis, what is essential to prevent a potential progression of injury to a complete fracture, delayed healing or nonunion and bone necrosis. (AU)


Subject(s)
Humans , Biomechanical Phenomena/physiology , Fractures, Stress/diagnostic imaging , Osteonecrosis/prevention & control , Bone and Bones/physiology , Bone and Bones/metabolism , Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy , Fractures, Stress/physiopathology , Fractures, Stress/metabolism , Fractures, Stress/prevention & control , Fractures, Stress/therapy , Risk Factors , Bone Remodeling/physiology , Athletes
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL