Artículos de revistas
Microdeformation of Infrastructure for Implant-Supported fixed Dental Prosthesis by Strain-Gauge Method: Influence of Technique and Material Impression
Date
2015-01-01Registration in:
Pesquisa Brasileira Em Odontopediatria E Clinica Integrada. Joao Pessoa: Assoc Apoio Pesquisa & Saude Bucal-apesb, v. 15, n. 1, p. 75-84, 2015.
1519-0501
10.4034/PBOCI.2015.151.9
WOS:000362600500009
7376974788169619
Author
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
Institutions
Abstract
Objective: To verify the structural microdeformation by strain gages, around implants that have metal infrastructure, obtained by different materials and techniques impressions. Material and Methods: Three internal hexagon implants in polyurethane block (master model) with abutments were taken the impression with differents materials and techniques impression (n=4): addition silicon and transfer for open tray technique (Group I), condensation silicon and transfer for closed tray technique (Group II); and polyether and transfer for open tray techniques (Group III). Impressions were poured with type IV stone. Metallic infrastructure were made and installed in the master model by an aid of a manual ratchet wrench. A torque of 20N was used to install the metallic infrastructure. Microdeformation analysis was performed around the implants by strain gauge method. Two gauges were inserted into the polyurethane base, and three measurements were taken for each infrastructure. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and inference. Kruskal-Wallis test was used to verify association between materials and impression techniques and deformation around the implants, at 5% confidence. Results: Microdeformations around the implants showed no statistically significant difference (p = 0.123) between the experimental groups, Group I (215.8 mu epsilon), Group II (194.9 mu epsilon) and Group III (297.4 mu epsilon). Conclusion: The use of different materials and techniques impression to made of infrastructures for fixed implant-supported dental prosthesis did not present difference in microdeformation values around implants.