Vertical misfit between prefabricated or casting prosthetic abutments and implant
Desajuste vertical entre implante e componentes protéticos pré-fabricados ou fundidos
Cechinato, Fernando; Rigo, Lilian; Federizzi, Leonardo; Schuh, Christian; Spazzin, Aloísio Oro
Rev. odontol. UNESP, vol.41, n3, p.198-202, 2012
Abstract
The aim of the study was to evaluate the vertical marginal misfit between implant and different prosthetic abutments (prefabricated and castings). Material and method: The samples were divided into three groups (n = 4): group MP – personalized abutment; group UI – UCLA with metallic base in Co-Cr; group UF – UCLA with metallic base casting in Co-Cr. The specimens were analyzed in scanning electronic microscope, where it was evaluated the vertical marginal misfit. The data were submitted to the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney statistical tests (α = 0.05). Result: The misfit means were: PA = 1.52 (±2.1); UB = 6.15 (±2.5); UA = 6.04 (±2.9). The personalized abutment showed the smallest vertical marginal misfit when compared to the UCLA abutment with metallic base in Co-Cr before and after casting process. Conclusion: All components presented acceptable fit levels for the use clinical, despite the observed differences.
Keywords
Dental prosthesis, dental implantation, prosthesis fitting.
Resumo
O objetivo do estudo foi avaliar o desajuste marginal vertical entre implante e diferentes componentes protéticos (pré-fabricados e fundidos). Material e método: Foram utilizados 3 grupos (n = 4): grupo MP – componentes pré-fabricados preparáveis; grupo UI – UCLA calcináveis com base metálica em Co-Cr; grupo UF – UCLA com base metálica fundidas em Co-Cr. Os espécimes foram analisados em microscópio eletrônico de varredura, onde foi avaliado o desajuste marginal vertical. Os dados foram submetidos aos testes estatísticos de Kruskal-Wallis e Mann-Whitney (α = 0,05). Resultado: As médias de desajuste (µm) encontradas foram: MP = 1,52 (±2,1); UI = 6,15 (±2,5); UF = 6,04 (±2,9). O munhão personalizável apresentou menor desajuste marginal vertical quando comparado ao pilar UCLA com base metálica em Co-Cr antes e após processo de fundição. Conclusão: Apesar das diferenças observadas, todos os componentes apresentaram níveis de adaptação aceitáveis para utilização clínica.
Palavras-chave
Prótese dentária, implante dentário, ajuste de prótese.
References
1. Spazzin AO, Farina AP, Luthi LF, Consani RLX, Mesquita MF. Torque de afrouxamento dos parafusos protéticos em próteses mandibulares implanto-retidas com diferentes níveis de desajustes. UNOPAR Cient: Ciênc Biol Saúde. 2009;11:5-8.
2. Gillot L, Noharet R, Buti J, Cannas B. A retrospective cohort study of 105 patients rehabilitated with immediately loaded mandibular cross-arch bridges in combination with immediate implant placement. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2011;4:247-53.
3. Bedrossian E. Rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla with the zygoma concept: a 7-year prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010;25:1213-21. PMid:21197500.
4. Zarb GA, Schmitt A. The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants in posterior partially edentulous patients. Int J Prosthodont. 1993;6:189-96. PMid:8329097.
5. Jemt T. Fixed implant-supported prostheses in the edentulous maxilla. A five-year follow-up report. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1994;5:142-7. PMid:7827228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1994.050304.x
6. Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K, Bohsali K, Goodacre CJ, Lang BR. Clinical methods for evaluating implant framework fit. J Prosthet Dent. 1999;81:7-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70229-5
7. Karl M, Taylor TD, Wichmann MG, Heckmann SM. In vivo stress behavior in cemented and screw-retained five-unit implant FPDs. J Prosthodont. 2006;15:20-4. PMid:16433647. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2006.00064.x
8. Silva GCC, Fraga MT, Mendonça JAG. Adaptação passiva de próteses implanto-suportadas: relação com a indução de tensões e importância clínica. Implant News. 2008;5:393-8.
9. Rodrigues-Júnior W, Montebello-Filho A, Anselmo SM, de Almeida RS. Assentamento passivo - Revisão de literatura. Implant News. 2006;3:43-6.
10. Haanaes HR. Implants and infections with special reference to oral bacteria. J Clin Periodontol. 1990;17:516-24. PMid:2202750. http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/j.1365-2710.1992.tb01226.x
11. Bauman GR, Mills M, Rapley JW, Hallmon WW. Plaque-induced inflammation around implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1992;7:330‑7. PMid:1289258.
12. Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Branemark PI. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg. 1981;10:387-416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0300-9785(81)80077-4
13. Jemt T. In vivo measurements of precision of fit involving implant-supported prostheses in the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996;11:151-8. PMid:8666445.
14. Carr AB, Gerard DA, Larsen PE. The response of bone in primates around unloaded dental implants supporting prostheses with different levels of fit. J Prosthet Dent. 1996;76:500-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(96)90008-6
15. Zarb GA, Schmitt A. The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants: the Toronto study. Part III: problems and complications encountered. J Prosthet Dent. 1990;64:185-94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(90)90177-E
16. Naert I, Quirynen M, van Steenberghe D, Darius P. A study of 589 consecutive implants supporting complete fixed prostheses. Part II: Prosthetic aspects. J Prosthet Dent. 1992;68:949-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(92)90557-Q
17. Gunne J, Jemt T, Linden B. Implant treatment in partially edentulous patients: a report on prostheses after 3 years. Int J Prosthodont. 1994;7:143-8. PMid:8003194.
18. Spazzin AO, Henriques GE, de Arruda Nobilo MA, Consani RL, Correr-Sobrinho L, Mesquita MF. Influence of Prosthetic Screw Material on Joint Stability in Passive and Non-Passive Implant-Supported Dentures. Open Dent J. 2009;3:245-9. PMid:20148135 PMCid:2819699. http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874210600903010245
19. Carlsson L. Built-in strain and untoward forces are the inevitable companions of prosthetic misfit. Nobelpharma News. 1994;8:5.
20. Carvalho MCAD, Neisser MP, Bottino MA. Avaliação In Vitro, por MEV, da Interface Implante/Componente Protético (Gold UCLA e UCLA Calcinável) Fundidos em Ti c.p. e NiCrTiMo. RBP: Rev Bras Implatodont Prótese Implant. 2004;11:133-40.
21. Barbosa GA, Simamoto Junior PC, Fernandes Neto AJ, de Mattos Mda G, Neves FD. Prosthetic laboratory influence on the vertical misfit at the implant/UCLA abutment interface. Braz Dent J. 2007;18:139-43. PMid:17982554. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0103- 64402007000200010
22. Moraes LM, Rossetti PH, Rossetti LM, Pedreira AP, Valle AL, Bonachela WC. Marginal fit at cylinder-abutment interface before and after overcasting procedure. J Appl Oral Sci. 2005;13:366-71. PMid:20865221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1678-77572005000400010
23. Kano SC, Bonfante G, Hussne R, Siqueira AF. Use of base metal casting alloys for implant framework: marginal accuracy analysis. J Appl Oral Sci. 2004;12:337-43. PMid:20976408. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1678-77572004000400016
24. Costa EM, Hocoya LS, Bottino MA. The fitness of copings constructed over UCLA abutments and the implant, constructed by different techniques: casting and casting with laser welding. J Appl Oral Sci. 2004;12:349-54. PMid:20976410. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1678- 77572004000400018
25. Romero GG, Engelmeier R, Powers JM, Canterbury AA. Accuracy of three corrective techniques for implant bar fabrication. J Prosthet Dent. 2000;84:602-7. PMid:11125345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2000.111494
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
StumbleUpon
CiteULike
Reddit
Email