RESUMO
Orthodontic Mini-Implants have a high success rate, but it is crucial to assess the load that they bear in order to maintain their primary stability. Increasing the diameter can improve this stability, but there are limitations due to the proximity of the tooth roots. To avoid damage, smaller diameters are used, which can decrease resistance and cause permanent deformations. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to evaluate the influence of the diameter of Mini-Implants through bending force tests, taking into account primary stability after one and two insertions. METHODS: Here, 40 Ti6AI4V alloy Mini-Implants of two different brands and diameters were divided into eight groups, half of which received one insertion in the artificial bone, and the rest received two. All were subjected to a constant bending force using an INSTRON-Electropuls E10000LT (Norwood, MA, USA) until fracture. RESULTS: The smaller-diameter Mini-Implants were less resistant to fracture, but both were able to withstand the necessary loads produced by orthodontic movements. As for the inserts, there were no statistically significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: There is an advantage to using 1.6 mm Mini-Implants over 2.0 mm ones, as a smaller diameter does not lead to fracture due to the forces used in orthodontic treatment. Having one or two inserts did not have a statistically significant effect.
RESUMO
Temporary restorations play a fundamental role in oral rehabilitation. A properly adapted implant-supported provisional restoration implies better esthetics, contouring and architectural modeling of the upper peri-implant tissue. This study aimed to evaluate the influence of oral pH on the fracture resistance of implant-supported provisional restorations made with two brands of bis-acrylic resin (LuxaCrown® and Protemp™ 4) and to compare the fracture resistance of these two materials. Twenty crowns (ten manufactured using each brand) served as a control, and another forty crowns (twenty of each brand) were aged using artificial saliva with pHs of 4 or 7, for 7 days at 37 °C, in an attempt to simulate the behavior of these materials inside the oral cavity. Subsequently, all crowns were subjected to the application of a force at a constant speed, in a universal testing machine, until fracture was achieved. The LuxaCrown® brand showed greater resistance to fracture than the Protemp™ 4 brand. Salivary pH did not influence the fracture resistance of provisional LuxaCrown® crowns but did influence the fracture resistance of provisional Protemp™ 4 crowns.
