dc.contributorUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
dc.contributorFac Pindamonhangaba FUNVIC
dc.contributorFree Univ Amsterdam
dc.date.accessioned2021-06-26T08:03:19Z
dc.date.accessioned2022-12-19T23:09:14Z
dc.date.available2021-06-26T08:03:19Z
dc.date.available2022-12-19T23:09:14Z
dc.date.created2021-06-26T08:03:19Z
dc.date.issued2019-01-01
dc.identifierJournal Of International Oral Health. Mumbai: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, v. 11, n. 1, p. 50-53, 2019.
dc.identifier0976-7428
dc.identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/210802
dc.identifier10.4103/jioh.jioh_307_18
dc.identifierWOS:000656803300010
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/5391402
dc.description.abstractAims: This study aimed to evaluate the influence of the crown type on the cervical microstrain around an external hexagon implant. Subjects and Methods: A dental manikin was impressed with addition-polymerizing silicone, and a hemiarch model was obtained with polyurethane resin. Then, a 3.75 mm x 11 mm implant was installed with 40 N/cm of torque in the region of element 36. Two groups were separated according to the type of crown used for rehabilitation: metal-ceramic crown (n = 10) or monolithic zirconia crown (n = 10). All crowns presented similar anatomy, with contact point in elements 35 and 37. Then, the polyurethane model was cleaned with isopropyl alcohol, and four strain gauges were bonded with cyanoacrylate adhesive in different areas (bucccal, lingual, mesial, and distal) around the implant. The crowns were installed with 20 N/cm torque, and an axial load (30 kgf) was applied in the center of the crown. Statistical Analysis: After performing 10 readings in each specimen, the data were analyzed by two-way analysis of variance and Tukey's test, all with alpha = 5%. Results: The results showed no statistical difference for the microstrain between the analyzed crowns (P = 0.065), and the microstrain values were different according to the area (P = 0.002): buccal (1514.9 +/- 233.8) > lingual (1280.8 +/- 245.5) > distal (373.2 +/- 105.2) > mesial (216.7 +/- 111.4). Conclusions: The crown type did not modify the microstrain in the peri-implant tissue.
dc.languageeng
dc.publisherWolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
dc.relationJournal Of International Oral Health
dc.sourceWeb of Science
dc.subjectDental implants
dc.subjectprosthetic dentistry
dc.subjectstrain gauge
dc.titleMonolithic zirconia crown does not increase the peri-implant strain under axial load
dc.typeArtículos de revistas


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución