Comportamento biomecânico de diferentes protocolos cirúrgicos/protéticos para maxila atrófica: análise fotoelástica e extensométrica
Carregando...
Data
2019-01-18
Autores
Campaner, Marcio [UNESP]
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Editor
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
Resumo
Os pacientes com maxila atrófica ainda representam um problema complexo para os cirurgiões dentistas, tornando sua reabilitação um grande desafio, devido à baixa quantidade e qualidade óssea, e também de áreas anatômicas a serem preservadas como a fossa nasal e o seio maxilar que pode apresentar-se pneumatizados. O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar a distribuição de tensões qualitativa e quantitativamente, por meio da análise fotoelástica (AF) e extensométrica (AE), de três diferentes protocolos alternativos ao procedimento de enxertia óssea para a reabilitação implantossuportada de maxila atrófica: implante convencional (S- standard - 3,75x11,5mm) associado a implante curto (C) (5x7mm), implante convencional (S) associado a implante inclinado em 30º e dois implantes convencionais instalados no eixo axial utilizando prótese com extensão em cantilever. A partir de um protótipo da maxila edêntula com atrofia na região posterior, confeccionada por meio de um modelo digital 3D, os corpos de prova foram divididos em 04 grupos de 01 espécime cada para AF e quatro grupos de 05 espécimes para a AE. Foram confeccionados 24 modelos, destes 4 foram de resina fotoelástica (PL-2) e 20 de poliuretano (F160). Foram utilizados implantes do tipo cone morse e confeccionadas próteses fixas implantossuportadas múltiplas (14-16) parafusadas. Os grupos foram divididos de acordo com protocolo de reabilitação proposto em: ISA - dois implantes (S) paralelos ao eixo axial, sendo um instalado na região do primeiro pré-molar (14) e outro na região do primeiro molar (16); ISAICA - dois implantes instalados paralelos ao eixo axial, sendo um implante (S) na região do primeiro pré-molar (14) e um implante curto (C) na região do primeiro molar (16); ISAISI - dois implantes (S), sendo um paralelo ao eixo axial instalado na região do primeiro pré-molar (14) e outro com inclinação distal de 30° na região do primeiro molar (16) e ISAPC - dois implantes (S) paralelos ao eixo axial instalados na região do primeiro pré-molar (14) e segundo pré-molar (15), com o pôntico (16) em cantiliever. Para AF, o conjunto modelo fotoelástico/implante/prótese foi posicionado em um polariscópio circular associado a uma máquina de ensaio universal (EMIC), sendo aplicada força axial de 100N. As tensões geradas foram registradas fotograficamente e analisadas qualitativamente. Para AE, 6 extensômetros foram posicionados ao redor dos dois implantes de cada grupo. Os sinais elétricos foram captados por um aparelho de aquisição de dados (ASD2002). Os dados quantitativos foram submetidos a ANOVA e ao teste Tukey (P<0.005). Pela AF, os protocolos de tratamento ISAICA e ISAPC apresentaram maior número de franjas de alta tensão em comparação os protocolos ISAISI e ISA. Pela AE, os protocolos ISAICA e ISAPC apresentaram maiores valores de tensão (microstrain), sendo diferentes do grupo controle ISA (P<.005). Já o protocolo ISAICA não apresentou diferença do grupo controle. Conclui-se que o protocolo de reabilitação de maxila atrófica com associação de implante axial e implante com inclinação distal de 30° apresentou o melhor comportamento biomecânico, sendo considerado a melhor alternativa ao procedimento de enxertia óssea para a reabilitação implantossuportada de maxila atrófica.
Patients with atrophic maxillary still represent a challenge to rehabilitate for dentists in general due to limitations on bone quantity and quality and the anatomical setting of the sites to be preserved, such as nasal cavity and maxillary sinus, that could be pneumatized. The aim of this study was to assess qualitative and quantitative the stress distribution, through photoelastic analysis (PA) and strain gauge (SG), of three alternative techniques to bone augmentation procedures for implant placement: standard implant (S- standard - 3,75x11,5mm) associated to short implant (C) (5x7mm), standard implant (S) associated to 30 º tilted implant, two conventional implants placed in the long axis and a cantilever prosthesis. A maxillary prototype model, with posterior atrophic region, was manufactured from a digital 3D model and divided into four groups with 01 specimen for the PA and 05 specimen for the SG. A total of 24 models were manufactured, 4 from photoelastic resin (PL-2) and 20 from polyurethane (F160). Morse taper implants were used and multiple screwed implant supported prostheses were manufactured (14-16). The groups were divided according to the rehabilitation protocol: ISA – two parallel implants in the long axis (S), one in the pre-molar region (14) and in the molar region (16); ISAICA – two parallel implants in the long axis, one standard (S) in the pre-molar region (14) and one short (C) in the molar region (16); ISAISI – two standard implants, one parallel to the long axis (14) and one tilted at 30˚ (16) and ISAPC – two parallel implants in the long axis, in the first (14) and second (15) pre molar region, with a cantilever prostheses (16). For the PA, the assemble photoelastic model/implants/prostheses was positioned in a circular polariscope associated to a universal test machine (EMIC), and an axial load of 100N applied. The tension generated were photographed and analyzed qualitatively. For the SGA, 6 extensometers were attached around two implants of each group. The electoral signals were captured with a data acquisition machine (ASD2001). The data were submitted to ANOVA and Tukey test (P <0.005). By AF, the ISAICA and ISAPC treatment protocols presented higher number of high-voltage fringes compared to the ISAISI and ISA protocols. By the AE, the ISAICA and ISAPC protocols presented higher values of tension (microstrain), being different from the ISA control group (P <.005). The ISAICA protocol did not present any difference in the control group. It was concluded that the protocol of atrophic maxilla rehabilitation with an association of axial implant and implant with distal inclination of 30 ° presented the best biomechanical behavior, being considered the best alternative to the bone grafting procedure for the implant-supported rehabilitation of atrophic maxilla.
Patients with atrophic maxillary still represent a challenge to rehabilitate for dentists in general due to limitations on bone quantity and quality and the anatomical setting of the sites to be preserved, such as nasal cavity and maxillary sinus, that could be pneumatized. The aim of this study was to assess qualitative and quantitative the stress distribution, through photoelastic analysis (PA) and strain gauge (SG), of three alternative techniques to bone augmentation procedures for implant placement: standard implant (S- standard - 3,75x11,5mm) associated to short implant (C) (5x7mm), standard implant (S) associated to 30 º tilted implant, two conventional implants placed in the long axis and a cantilever prosthesis. A maxillary prototype model, with posterior atrophic region, was manufactured from a digital 3D model and divided into four groups with 01 specimen for the PA and 05 specimen for the SG. A total of 24 models were manufactured, 4 from photoelastic resin (PL-2) and 20 from polyurethane (F160). Morse taper implants were used and multiple screwed implant supported prostheses were manufactured (14-16). The groups were divided according to the rehabilitation protocol: ISA – two parallel implants in the long axis (S), one in the pre-molar region (14) and in the molar region (16); ISAICA – two parallel implants in the long axis, one standard (S) in the pre-molar region (14) and one short (C) in the molar region (16); ISAISI – two standard implants, one parallel to the long axis (14) and one tilted at 30˚ (16) and ISAPC – two parallel implants in the long axis, in the first (14) and second (15) pre molar region, with a cantilever prostheses (16). For the PA, the assemble photoelastic model/implants/prostheses was positioned in a circular polariscope associated to a universal test machine (EMIC), and an axial load of 100N applied. The tension generated were photographed and analyzed qualitatively. For the SGA, 6 extensometers were attached around two implants of each group. The electoral signals were captured with a data acquisition machine (ASD2001). The data were submitted to ANOVA and Tukey test (P <0.005). By AF, the ISAICA and ISAPC treatment protocols presented higher number of high-voltage fringes compared to the ISAISI and ISA protocols. By the AE, the ISAICA and ISAPC protocols presented higher values of tension (microstrain), being different from the ISA control group (P <.005). The ISAICA protocol did not present any difference in the control group. It was concluded that the protocol of atrophic maxilla rehabilitation with an association of axial implant and implant with distal inclination of 30 ° presented the best biomechanical behavior, being considered the best alternative to the bone grafting procedure for the implant-supported rehabilitation of atrophic maxilla.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
Prótese dentária fixada por implante, Fenômenos biomecânicos, Implantes dentários, Biomechanical phenomena