Análise comparativa das tensões e deformações entre próteses implantossuportadas de três elementos com dois ou três pilares
Carregando...
Data
2016-11-30
Autores
Nishioka, Gabriela Nogueira de Melo [UNESP]
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Editor
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
Resumo
O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar as tensões e deformações in vitro, por meio da fotoelasticidade e da extensometria, em próteses parciais fixas implantossuportadas de três elementos variando o número de pilares: dois e três. O primeiro bloco de poliuretano (modelo mestre 1) recebeu três implantes e o segundo (modelo mestre 2) recebeu dois implantes, todos de hexágono externo. Em seguida, os modelos mestre foram duplicados em resina fotoelástica. Pilares protéticos microunit foram conectados aos implantes com torque de 20 Ncm. Sobre os pilares protéticos dos modelos mestre foram parafusados cilindros plásticos, que receberam estruturas em padrões de resinas, os quais foram fundidos em liga de Ni-Cr (n=10). Quatro extensômetros foram colados na superfície de cada bloco de poliuretano, tangenciando os implantes. Nos modelos mestre e nos modelos fotoelásticos, cada estrutura metálica foi parafusada sobre os pilares protéticos com torque de 10 Ncm. Os dados obtidos na extensometria foram submetidos aos testes estatísticos RM ANOVA e Tukey (5%). As franjas isocromáticas obtidas nos modelos fotoelásticos após cada condição de carga foram registradas com uma câmera digital, visualizadas em um programa de computador e comparadas qualitativamente. Resultados: Houve uma diferença estatística significante entre a quantidade de suporte de uma prótese fixa (p=0,001). Os resultados revelaram que três implantes apresentaram uma melhor distribuição das cargas em qualquer ponto analisado e que a região de pôntico da prótese é o local que apresenta maior diferença na quantidade de deformação (2326,95με para 2 implantes e 1006,57με para 3 implantes). Nas imagens fotoelásticas foi possível visualizar uma melhor distribuição das tensões no bloco com 3 implantes. Conclusão: Ambos os métodos apresentaram resultados similares. Esse estudo sugere que uma prótese fixa pode ser suportada por 2 ou 3 implantes.
The present study used photoelastic and strain gauge analysis to compare stress and microstrain to perform an in vitro evaluation of the effect of the numbers of support in a implant-supported fixed partial prostheses with tree elements. The first polyurethane block (master model 1) will contain three implants and the second block (model 2) two of them, all implants have a external hexagon. Then, the master models were duplicated in photoelastic resin. Microunit abutments were connected to the implants and received a 20 Ncm torque. Over the master model plastic prosthetic cylinders were screwed the abutments that received standard patterns cast in Ni-Cr alloy (n=10). Four strain gauges (SG) were bonded in the surface of the block, tangentially to the lateral implants. On the master model and photoelastic model, each metallic structure were screwed onto the abutments with a 10 Ncm torque. The data obtained from the strain gauge were analyzed statistically by RM ANOVA and Tukey's test, with a 5% conventional level of significance. The isochromatic fringes obtained in the photoelastic models after each load condition were recorded with a digital camera, visualized with software to facilitate qualitative analysis. Results: There was statistically significant differences in support of FPD( p=0,001).The results demonstrated that 3 implants has higher stress distribution and in the pontic of FPD we found higher stress (2326,95με in 2 implants and 1006,57με in 3 implants).In photoelastic images, 3 implants presented better stress distribution than 2 implants. Conclusions: Both methods found similar results. This study suggests that FPD can be supported by two or three implants.
The present study used photoelastic and strain gauge analysis to compare stress and microstrain to perform an in vitro evaluation of the effect of the numbers of support in a implant-supported fixed partial prostheses with tree elements. The first polyurethane block (master model 1) will contain three implants and the second block (model 2) two of them, all implants have a external hexagon. Then, the master models were duplicated in photoelastic resin. Microunit abutments were connected to the implants and received a 20 Ncm torque. Over the master model plastic prosthetic cylinders were screwed the abutments that received standard patterns cast in Ni-Cr alloy (n=10). Four strain gauges (SG) were bonded in the surface of the block, tangentially to the lateral implants. On the master model and photoelastic model, each metallic structure were screwed onto the abutments with a 10 Ncm torque. The data obtained from the strain gauge were analyzed statistically by RM ANOVA and Tukey's test, with a 5% conventional level of significance. The isochromatic fringes obtained in the photoelastic models after each load condition were recorded with a digital camera, visualized with software to facilitate qualitative analysis. Results: There was statistically significant differences in support of FPD( p=0,001).The results demonstrated that 3 implants has higher stress distribution and in the pontic of FPD we found higher stress (2326,95με in 2 implants and 1006,57με in 3 implants).In photoelastic images, 3 implants presented better stress distribution than 2 implants. Conclusions: Both methods found similar results. This study suggests that FPD can be supported by two or three implants.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
Implante dentário, Prótese fixa, Extensometria, Fotoelasticidade