RESUMO
PURPOSE: To compare and to evaluate the stability of the retentive force of cobalt-chromium (Co-Cr) circumferential clasps (control) to those with an acetyl resin retentive arm. METHODS: Sixteen specimens with a couple of circumferential clasps were made using Co-Cr over a metal model providing 0.25 mm undercuts. Eight specimens were fabricated without the anterior retentive arm, which was made later using acetyl resin (Dental D). Insertion and removal simulation test was performed through 7250 cycles. The retentive force was recorded in Newtons (N) for periods corresponding to 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years. The data were subjected to ANOVA and Tukey test to compare periods and to Student's t test to compare groups (α=0.05). RESULTS: Mean (SD) is presented for Co-Cr and resin groups, respectively: 8.09(3.05) and 2.79(1.57) in period 0; 10.48(4.25) and 3.32(1.92) in 1 year; 10.09(4.15) and 3.47(1.81) in 2 years; 9.87(4.30) and 3.46(1.87) in 3 years; 9.46(3.93) and 3.27(1.59) in 4 years; 9.63(3.79) and 3.41(1.59) in 5 years. There were significant differences for Co-Cr between periods of 0 and 1 (p<0.001), 0 and 2 (p<0.01) and 0 and 3 (p<0.05). In the resin group, no significant differences were found between periods (p>0.05). Comparisons between the groups showed statistical differences for all tested periods: 0 (p=0.0012), 1 (p=0.0013), 2 (p=0.0019), 3 (p=0.0031), 4 (p=0.0027) and 5 years (p=0.0014). CONCLUSIONS: Acetyl resin retentive arms, even if only in the anterior clasps, can significantly reduce the retentive force, but this force remained stable after 5 years of simulated use.
Assuntos
Grampos Dentários , Retenção de Dentadura , Resinas Sintéticas , Ligas de Cromo , Planejamento de Dentadura , Prótese Parcial RemovívelRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The aim was to analyze the expression of E-cadherin and beta-catenin in ameloblastomas and tooth germs to determine their roles in cell differentiation processes and invasiveness compared with odontogenesis. STUDY DESIGN: Twenty-one ameloblastoma cases (16 solid and 5 unicystic tumors) and 5 tooth germs were submitted to the immunohistochemical detection of E-cadherin and beta-catenin. Immunoreactivity was evaluated using descriptive and semiquantitative analysis, investigating the location and intensity of staining. The Fisher exact test was performed, and P values of <.05 were considered to indicate statistical significance. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in the expression of E-cadherin and beta-catenin between solid and unicystic ameloblastomas (P = .59; P = .63; respectively). The same was found when comparing solid and unicystic ameloblastomas with the tooth germs for both E-cadherin (P = .53; P = .44; respectively) and beta-catenin (P = .12; P = .16; respectively). Nuclear staining of beta-catenin was observed in only 4 cases (3 solid and 1 unicystic tumor). CONCLUSION: The results showed no differences in the expression of E-cadherin or beta-catenin between tooth germs and solid and unicystic ameloblastomas. The expression of these molecules seems mainly to be related to the process of cell differentiation.