Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Más filtros

Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
J Prosthet Dent ; 125(1): 138.e1-138.e8, 2021 Jan.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33393474


STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Mini implants (<3 mm in diameter) are being used as an alternative to standard implants for implant-retained mandibular overdentures; however, they may exhibit higher stresses at the crestal level. PURPOSE: The purpose of this finite element analysis study was to evaluate the biomechanical behavior (stress distribution pattern) in the mandibular overdenture, mucosa, bone, and implants when retained with 2 standard implants or 2 mini implants under unilateral or bilateral loading conditions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A patient with edentulous mandible and his denture was scanned with cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), and a 3D mandibular model was created in the Mimics software program by using the CBCT digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM) images. The model was transferred to the 3Matics software program to form a 2-mm-thick mucosal layer and to assemble the denture DICOM file. A 12-mm-long standard implant (Ø3.5 mm) and a mini dental implant (Ø2.5 mm) along with the LOCATOR male attachments (height 4 mm) were designed by using the SOLIDWORKS software program. Two standard or 2 mini implants in the canine region were embedded separately in the 3D assembled model. The base of the mandible was fixed, and vertical compressive loads of 100 N were applied unilaterally and bilaterally in the first molar region. The material properties for acrylic resin (denture), titanium (implants), mucosa (tissue), and bone (mandible) were allocated. Maximum von Mises stress and strain values were obtained and analyzed. RESULTS: Maximum stresses of 9.78 MPa (bilaterally) and 11.98 MPa (unilaterally) were observed in 2 mini implants as compared with 3.12 MPa (bilaterally) and 3.81 MPa (unilaterally) in 2 standard implants. The stress values in the mandible were observed to be almost double the mini implants as compared with the standard implants. The stresses in the denture were in the range of 3.21 MPa and 3.83 MPa and in the mucosa of 0.68 MPa and 0.7 MPa for 2 implants under unilateral and bilateral loading conditions. The strain values shown similar trends with both implant types under bilateral and unilateral loading. CONCLUSIONS: Two mini implants generated an average of 68.15% more stress than standard implants. The 2 standard implant-retained overdenture showed less stress concentration in and around implants than mini implant-retained overdentures.

Implantes Dentales , Prótesis de Recubrimiento , Prótesis Dental de Soporte Implantado , Análisis del Estrés Dental , Retención de Dentadura , Análisis de Elementos Finitos , Humanos , Mandíbula/diagnóstico por imagen , Estándares de Referencia , Estrés Mecánico
J Conserv Dent ; 20(2): 81-85, 2017.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28855752


OBJECTIVES: To compare the relative axis modification and canal concentricity after glide path preparation with 20/0.02 hand K-file (NITIFLEX®) and 20/0.04 rotary file (HyFlex™ CM) with subsequent instrumentation with 1.5 mm self-adjusting file (SAF). MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and twenty ISO 15, 0.02 taper, Endo Training Blocks (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) were acquired and randomly divided into following two groups (n = 60): group 1, establishing glide path till 20/0.02 hand K-file (NITIFLEX®) followed by instrumentation with 1.5 mm SAF; and Group 2, establishing glide path till 20/0.04 rotary file (HyFlex™ CM) followed by instrumentation with 1.5 mm SAF. Pre- and post-instrumentation digital images were processed with MATLAB R 2013 software to identify the central axis, and then superimposed using digital imaging software (Picasa 3.0 software, Google Inc., California, USA) taking five landmarks as reference points. Student's t-test for pairwise comparisons was applied with the level of significance set at 0.05. RESULTS: Training blocks instrumented with 20/0.04 rotary file and SAF were associated less deviation in canal axis (at all the five marked points), representing better canal concentricity compared to those, in which glide path was established by 20/0.02 hand K-files followed by SAF instrumentation. CONCLUSION: Canal geometry is better maintained after SAF instrumentation with a prior glide path established with 20/0.04 rotary file.