Evaluation of misfit and stress distribution in implant-retained prosthesis obtained by different methods

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Tonin,Bruna Santos Honório
Data de Publicação: 2021
Outros Autores: Peixoto,Raniel Fernandes, Fu,Jing, Freitas,Bruna Neves de, Mattos,Maria da Gloria Chiarello de, Macedo,Ana Paula
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Brazilian Dental Journal
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-64402021000500067
Resumo: Abstract This study evaluated the vertical misfit, passivity, and stress distribution after tightening the screws of different prosthesis. Two implants were used to simulate the rehabilitation of partially edentulous mandible space from the second premolar to the second molar. 40 three-element screw-retained fixed dental prosthesis with distal cantilever were fabricated and divided into four groups according to the method of production of framework (n = 10): G1 = conventional casting one-piece framework, G2 = conventional casting sectioned and laser welding, G3 = conventional casting sectioned and tungsten inert gas (TIG) welding and G4 = framework obtained by CAD/CAM (computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing) system. The vertical misfits (both screws tightened) and the passive fit (one screw tightened) were measured under a comparator optical microscope. The data was submitted to Shapiro-Wilk test to enable comparison with ANOVA followed by Tukey with Bonferroni adjust (α = .05). The qualitative analysis of the stress distribution was performed by the photoelastic method. The vertical misfit (both screws tightened) of the G2 (24 μm) and G3 (27 μm) were significantly higher than G4 (10 μm) (p = 0,006). The passive fit (for the non-tightened) of the G1(64 μm) and G3 (61 μm) were significantly higher than the G4 (32 μm) (p=0,009). G1 showed high stress between the implants in the photoelastic analysis and G4 presented lower stress. In conclusion, CAD/CAM method results in less vertical misfit, more passivity, and consequently better stress distribution to the bone.
id FUNORP-1_73771e26f4e46e0f3c8a88ee19f1b43c
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S0103-64402021000500067
network_acronym_str FUNORP-1
network_name_str Brazilian Dental Journal
repository_id_str
spelling Evaluation of misfit and stress distribution in implant-retained prosthesis obtained by different methodsDental implantscad-cam prosthetic misfitstress distribuitionAbstract This study evaluated the vertical misfit, passivity, and stress distribution after tightening the screws of different prosthesis. Two implants were used to simulate the rehabilitation of partially edentulous mandible space from the second premolar to the second molar. 40 three-element screw-retained fixed dental prosthesis with distal cantilever were fabricated and divided into four groups according to the method of production of framework (n = 10): G1 = conventional casting one-piece framework, G2 = conventional casting sectioned and laser welding, G3 = conventional casting sectioned and tungsten inert gas (TIG) welding and G4 = framework obtained by CAD/CAM (computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing) system. The vertical misfits (both screws tightened) and the passive fit (one screw tightened) were measured under a comparator optical microscope. The data was submitted to Shapiro-Wilk test to enable comparison with ANOVA followed by Tukey with Bonferroni adjust (α = .05). The qualitative analysis of the stress distribution was performed by the photoelastic method. The vertical misfit (both screws tightened) of the G2 (24 μm) and G3 (27 μm) were significantly higher than G4 (10 μm) (p = 0,006). The passive fit (for the non-tightened) of the G1(64 μm) and G3 (61 μm) were significantly higher than the G4 (32 μm) (p=0,009). G1 showed high stress between the implants in the photoelastic analysis and G4 presented lower stress. In conclusion, CAD/CAM method results in less vertical misfit, more passivity, and consequently better stress distribution to the bone.Fundação Odontológica de Ribeirão Preto2021-09-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-64402021000500067Brazilian Dental Journal v.32 n.5 2021reponame:Brazilian Dental Journalinstname:Fundação Odontológica de Ribeirão Preto (FUNORP)instacron:FUNORP10.1590/0103-6440202104453info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessTonin,Bruna Santos HonórioPeixoto,Raniel FernandesFu,JingFreitas,Bruna Neves deMattos,Maria da Gloria Chiarello deMacedo,Ana Paulaeng2021-12-01T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0103-64402021000500067Revistahttps://www.scielo.br/j/bdj/https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phpbdj@forp.usp.br||sergio@fosjc.unesp.br1806-47600103-6440opendoar:2021-12-01T00:00Brazilian Dental Journal - Fundação Odontológica de Ribeirão Preto (FUNORP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Evaluation of misfit and stress distribution in implant-retained prosthesis obtained by different methods
title Evaluation of misfit and stress distribution in implant-retained prosthesis obtained by different methods
spellingShingle Evaluation of misfit and stress distribution in implant-retained prosthesis obtained by different methods
Tonin,Bruna Santos Honório
Dental implants
cad-cam prosthetic misfit
stress distribuition
title_short Evaluation of misfit and stress distribution in implant-retained prosthesis obtained by different methods
title_full Evaluation of misfit and stress distribution in implant-retained prosthesis obtained by different methods
title_fullStr Evaluation of misfit and stress distribution in implant-retained prosthesis obtained by different methods
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of misfit and stress distribution in implant-retained prosthesis obtained by different methods
title_sort Evaluation of misfit and stress distribution in implant-retained prosthesis obtained by different methods
author Tonin,Bruna Santos Honório
author_facet Tonin,Bruna Santos Honório
Peixoto,Raniel Fernandes
Fu,Jing
Freitas,Bruna Neves de
Mattos,Maria da Gloria Chiarello de
Macedo,Ana Paula
author_role author
author2 Peixoto,Raniel Fernandes
Fu,Jing
Freitas,Bruna Neves de
Mattos,Maria da Gloria Chiarello de
Macedo,Ana Paula
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Tonin,Bruna Santos Honório
Peixoto,Raniel Fernandes
Fu,Jing
Freitas,Bruna Neves de
Mattos,Maria da Gloria Chiarello de
Macedo,Ana Paula
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Dental implants
cad-cam prosthetic misfit
stress distribuition
topic Dental implants
cad-cam prosthetic misfit
stress distribuition
description Abstract This study evaluated the vertical misfit, passivity, and stress distribution after tightening the screws of different prosthesis. Two implants were used to simulate the rehabilitation of partially edentulous mandible space from the second premolar to the second molar. 40 three-element screw-retained fixed dental prosthesis with distal cantilever were fabricated and divided into four groups according to the method of production of framework (n = 10): G1 = conventional casting one-piece framework, G2 = conventional casting sectioned and laser welding, G3 = conventional casting sectioned and tungsten inert gas (TIG) welding and G4 = framework obtained by CAD/CAM (computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing) system. The vertical misfits (both screws tightened) and the passive fit (one screw tightened) were measured under a comparator optical microscope. The data was submitted to Shapiro-Wilk test to enable comparison with ANOVA followed by Tukey with Bonferroni adjust (α = .05). The qualitative analysis of the stress distribution was performed by the photoelastic method. The vertical misfit (both screws tightened) of the G2 (24 μm) and G3 (27 μm) were significantly higher than G4 (10 μm) (p = 0,006). The passive fit (for the non-tightened) of the G1(64 μm) and G3 (61 μm) were significantly higher than the G4 (32 μm) (p=0,009). G1 showed high stress between the implants in the photoelastic analysis and G4 presented lower stress. In conclusion, CAD/CAM method results in less vertical misfit, more passivity, and consequently better stress distribution to the bone.
publishDate 2021
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2021-09-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-64402021000500067
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-64402021000500067
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/0103-6440202104453
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Fundação Odontológica de Ribeirão Preto
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Fundação Odontológica de Ribeirão Preto
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Brazilian Dental Journal v.32 n.5 2021
reponame:Brazilian Dental Journal
instname:Fundação Odontológica de Ribeirão Preto (FUNORP)
instacron:FUNORP
instname_str Fundação Odontológica de Ribeirão Preto (FUNORP)
instacron_str FUNORP
institution FUNORP
reponame_str Brazilian Dental Journal
collection Brazilian Dental Journal
repository.name.fl_str_mv Brazilian Dental Journal - Fundação Odontológica de Ribeirão Preto (FUNORP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv bdj@forp.usp.br||sergio@fosjc.unesp.br
_version_ 1754204096553811968