Analysis of behavior of the wear coefficient in different layers of acrylic resin teeth.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Analysis of the wear coefficient (k) of the superficial and deep layers of acrylic resin teeth can help predict denture durability, but little has been published on the wear coefficient of denture teeth. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to determine the k value for the superficial and deep layers of the acrylic resin teeth of 6 different brands by using the fixed-ball microabrasive wear method. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Six artificial tooth specimens of 4 commercial brands were tested: Artiplus IPN (Ar), Biotone IPN (Bi), Magister (Ma), Premium (Pr), Trilux (Tr), and SR Vivodent (Vi). Two specimens from each brand were created, one for the superficial layer and the other for the deep layer. The test was performed on fixed-ball microabrasive wear equipment set to operate at a constant normal force of 0.5 N and a rotation speed of 100 rpm. The test time periods were 5.00, 8.33, and 11.66 minutes. The characteristics of the wear craters were measured by using an optical microscope at a magnification of ×50 and Leica Microsystems software. Wear coefficient (k) values were deduced by using the Archard equation for abrasive wear, Q=k·N, and were analyzed by using 1-way analysis of variance, complemented by the Tukey HSD test (α=.05). A different analysis was used for each layer. RESULTS: The analysis of variance of the wear coefficient revealed significant differences among the groups regarding the superficial layers (P=.009). The Tukey HSD test showed that the k values for the superficial layers of Artiplus specimens were significantly lower than those of the Vivodent and Magister specimens. CONCLUSIONS: One brand (Ar) presented significantly lower wear coefficient value for the surface layer. No difference in wear coefficient values was found among the tooth brands for the deep layer.

Short Dental Implants (≤7mm) Versus Longer Implants in Augmented Bone Area: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

AIM: The aim of this systematic review was to compare the survival rate and the marginal bone loss between short implants (≤7 mm) placed in the atrophic area and longer implants placed in the augmented bone area of posterior regions of maxillaries. METHODS: Electronic search using three databases was performed up to May 2017 to identify Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) assessing short implants survival with a minimal follow-up of 12 months post-loading. For the meta-analysis, a Risk Difference (RD) with the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) was used to pool the results of implant failure rate for each treatment group. For the marginal bone changes, Mean Differences (MD) with 95% CI were calculated. RESULTS: Seven randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria, being included in qualitative and quantitative analyses. The RD between the short implant group and the control group was -0.02 (95% CI: -0.04 to 0.00), I2=0 and Chi2=3.14, indicating a favorable survival rate for short implant, but with no statistical significance (p=0.09). DISCUSSION: For marginal bone loss, the mean difference was -0,13 (95%CI: -0.22 to -0.05), favoring the test group with statistical significance (p=0.002). The studies showed more heterogeneity for bone loss compared to survival rate. Short and longer implants showed similar survival rates after one year of loading, however the marginal bone loss around short implants was lower than in longer implants sites. CONCLUSION: Placement of implants ≤7 mm of length was found to be a predictable alternative for the rehabilitation of atrophic posterior regions, avoiding all the disadvantages intrinsic to bone augmentation procedures.