Revista de Odontologia da UNESP
https://revodontolunesp.com.br/article/doi/10.1590/rou.2014.056
Revista de Odontologia da UNESP
Original Article

Estudo comparativo das microdeformações resultantes de cargas estáticas axiais e não axiais em próteses de três elementos implantossuportadas

Comparative study of micro deformations resulting from axial and non-axial static loads under three prosthetic implant elements

Campos, Julio Ferraz; Rodrigues, Vinicius Anéas; Balducci, Ivan; Nishioka, Gabriela Nogueira de Melo; Nishioka, Renato Sussumu

Downloads: 2
Views: 1059

Resumo

Introdução: O controle das microdeformações ao redor dos implantes é um fator que pode levar a uma melhor osseointegração e manutenção das estruturas ósseas. Objetivo: Avaliar a distribuição de tensões ao redor dos implantes, utilizando-se a extensometria, sob a influência da aplicação de cargas estáticas axiais e não axiais em próteses parciais fixas de três elementos, em diferentes pontos de aplicação de carga. Material e método: Em um bloco de poliuretano, foram instalados três implantes de hexágono interno e, sobre esses implantes, pilares protéticos microunit foram conectados com torque de 20 Ncm. Cilindros plásticos foram utilizados para realização dos enceramentos padronizados que, posteriormente, foram fundidos em liga de cobalto cromo. Extensômetros foram colados na superfície do bloco ao redor dos três implantes. As estruturas metálicas foram parafusadas com torque de 10 Ncm cada. Em seguida, foram realizados carregamentos verticais estáticos de 30 kgf, durante dez segundos, em cinco pontos pré-determinados (A, B, C, D e E), utilizando um dispositivo de aplicação de cargas (DAC). Resultado: Os dados foram analisados pelo teste RM ANOVA, que indicou que o efeito entre o ponto de aplicação de carga e os diferentes corpos de prova não foi estatisticamente significante, enquanto que, para o efeito entre os pontos de aplicação de carga, houve diferença (p=0,0001). Em seguida, aplicou-se o teste de comparação múltipla de Tukey. Conclusão: A aplicação de carga sobre os pontos não axiais D e E produziu um aumento da magnitude de microdeformação ao redor dos implantes.

Palavras-chave

Implantes dentários, prótese parcial fixa, prótese dentária.

Abstract

Introduction: The control of the micro strain surrounding implants is a factor that can lead to a better osseointegration and maintenance of bone structures. Objective: evaluate in vitro, using strain gauge analysis , the influence of the axial and non-axial static load in implant-supported fixed partial dentures, varying the point of load application. Material and method: In a block of polyurethane three internal hexagonal implants were installed, on implants abutments microunit were connected with torque of 20 Ncm, and plastic prosthetic cylinders were screwed on to the abutments, which received standard patterns cast in Co-Cr alloy (n=10). Four strain gauges were bonded on the surface of the block tangentially to the three implants. Each metallic structure was screwed onto the microunit with a 10 Ncm torque. With a load application device (DAC) static vertical loads of 30kgf were applied for ten seconds at five predetermined points (A, B, C, D and E). Result: Result analyzed by RM ANOVA, in which the effect of the point of load application and differents specimens were not statistically significant, whereas regarding the points of load application presented statistical differenced (p=0.0001). Applying Tukey’s multiple comparison tests. Conclusion: The application of load on the non-axial points D and E produced an increase in the magnitude of micro strain around implants.

Keywords

Dental implants, denture, partial, fixed, dental prosthesis

References

 


1. Adell R, Eriksson B, Lekholm U, Bränemark PI, Jemt T. A long-term follow-up study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of totally edentulous jaws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1990 Winter;5(4):347-59. PMid:2094653.

2. Lekholm U, Gröndahl K, Jemt T. Outcome of oral implant treatment in partially edentulous jaws followed 20 years in clinical function. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2006; 8(4): 178-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2006.00019.x. PMid:17100743

3. Annibali S, Vestri AR, Pilotto A, La Monaca G, Di Carlo S, Cristalli MP. Patient satisfaction with oral implant rehabilitation: evaluation of responses to a questionnaire. Ann Stomatol (Roma). 2010 July; 1(3-4): 2-8. PMid:22238708.

4. Isidor F. Influence of forces on peri-implant bone. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006 October; 17(S2, Suppl 2): 8-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600- 0501.2006.01360.x. PMid:16968378

5. Rangert BR, Sullivan RM, Jemt TM. Load factor control for implants in the posterior partially edentulous segment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997 May-June; 12(3): 360-70. PMid:9197101.

6. Çehreli MC, Akça K. Narrow-diameter implants as terminal support for occlusal three-unit FPDs: a biomechanical analysis. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2004 December; 24(6): 513-9. PMid:15626314.

7. Sahin S, Çehreli MC, Yalçin E. The influence of functional forces on the biomechanics of implant-supported prostheses—a review. J Dent. 2002 September- November; 30(7-8): 271-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(02)00065-9. PMid:12554107

8. Wiskott HW, Belser UC. Lack of integration of smooth titanium surfaces: a working hypothesis based on strains generated in the surrounding bone. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1999 December; 10(6): 429-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1999.100601.x. PMid:10740452

9. Miyashiro M, Suedam V, Moretti Neto RT, Ferreira PM, Rubo JH. Validation of an experimental polyurethane model for biomechanical studies on implant supported prosthesis—tension tests. J Appl Oral Sci. 2011 May-June; 19(3): 244-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1678-77572011000300012. PMid:21625741

10. Abreu CW, Vasconcellos LGO, Balducci I, Nishioka RS. A comparative study of microstrain around three-morse taper implants with machined and plastic copings under axial loading. Braz J Oral Sci. 2010 January-March; 9(1): 11-5.

11. Nishioka RS, Vasconcellos LG, de Melo Nishioka GN. Comparative strain gauge analysis of external and internal hexagon, Morse taper, and influence of straight and offset implant configuration. Implant Dent. 2011 Apr;20(2):e24-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e318211fce8. PMid:21448016.

12. Vasconcellos LG, Nishioka RS, Vasconcellos LM, Nishioka LN. Effect of axial loads on implant supported partial fixed prostheses by strain gauge analysis. J Appl Oral Sci. 2011 Nov-Dec;19(6):610-5. PMid:22230995. PMCID: PMC3973462.

13. De Vasconcellos LG, Nishioka RS, De Vasconcellos LM, Balducci I, Kojima AN. Microstrain around dental implants supporting fixed partial prostheses under axial and non-axial loading conditions, in vitro strain gauge analysis. J Craniofac Surg. 2013 Nov;24(6):e546-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ SCS.0b013e31829ac83d. PMid:24220463.

14. Mericske-Stern R, Assal P, Merickse E, Bürgin W. Oclussal force and oral tactile sensibility measured in partially edentulous patients with ITI implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1995 May-Jun;10(3):345-53. PMid:7615331.

15. Jacques LB, Moura MS, Suedam V, Souza EA, Rubo JH. Effect of cantilever length and framework alloy on the stress distribution of mandibular-cantilevered implant-supported prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009 Jul;20(7):737-41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01712.x. PMid:19489929.

16. Çehreli MC, Iplikçioglu H, Bilir OG. The influence of the location of load transfer on strains around implants supporting four unit cement-retained fixed prostheses: in vitro evaluation of axial versus off-set loading. J Oral Rehabil. 2002 Apr;29(4):394-400. PMid:11966975.

17. Karl M, Wichmann MG, Winter W, Graef F, Taylor TD, Heckmann SM. Influence of fixation mode and superstructure span upon strain development of implant fixed partial dentures. J Prosthodont. 2008 Jan;17(1):3-8. PMid:17927737.

18. Suedam V, Souza EA, Moura MS, Jacques LB, Rubo JH. Effect of abutment’s height and framework alloy on the load distribution of mandibular cantilevered implant-supported prosthesis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009 Feb;20(2):196-200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01609.x. PMid:19191796.

19. Heckmann SM, Karl M, Wichmann MG, Winter W, Graef F, Taylor TD. Cement fixation and screw retention: parameters of passive fit. An in vitro study of three-unit implant-supported fixed partial dentures. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004 Aug;15(4):466-73. PMid:15248882.

20. Nishioka RS, Nishioka LN, Abreu CW, de Vasconcellos LG, Balducci I. Machined and plastic copings in three-element prostheses with different types of implant-abutment joints: a strain gauge comparative analysis. J Appl Oral Sci. 2010 May-Jun;18(3):225-30. PMid:20856998

 

588019897f8c9d0a098b51d5 rou Articles
Links & Downloads

Rev. odontol. UNESP

Share this page
Page Sections