Avaliação fotoelástica do implante transmaxilar com múltiplos munhões protéticos

• Autor(a) principal: Balluta, Alexandra
• Data de Publicação: 2017
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Repositório do Centro Universitário Braz Cubas
• Texto Completo: https://repositorio.cruzeirodosul.edu.br/handle/123456789/2064
• topic: Implante dentário; Força compressiva; Processamento de imagem assistida por computador; CNPQ::CIENCIAS DA SAUDE::ODONTOLOGIA

Dental rehabilitation in an atrophic maxilla is a major challenge for dentistry. In order to facilitate the rehabilitation of the atrophic maxilla, an implant called transmaxillary was developed. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the stress distribution around the transmaxillary implant submitted to axial and oblique loads by photoelasticity. Fourteen specimens with transmaxillary implant assemblies and respective prosthetic components were made of rigid photoelastic resin. Three types of prosthetic situations were tested: pure metal bar (1), metal bar with acrylic resin and teeth (fixed metalloplastic) (2), and pure metal bar with occlusal projections (3) to prevent sliding at the oblique load . Prosthetic types 1 and 2 were submitted to axial loads and type 3 to oblique loads (20 °), all at 100, 200, 400 and 500 N. All prosthetic types were loaded centrally and in cantilever. Compressive loading (10 mm / min) was applied in a universal testing machine, coupled to a polariscope with a photographic camera. The tests were repeated 5 times at the same point, totaling 140 tests per prosthetic type, 420 in total, and 1680 images were collected. In each image, the magenta color of the fringes was selected and measured (pixels2 ), according to a previously validated protocol. In the same load situations (axial or oblique) and prosthetic types the data were submitted to the Shapiro Wilk test, followed by Fisher's or Kruskal-Wallis's LSD test (p <0.05). In the majority of situations, significant differences were observed in the area of stress distribution only between 100 and 400 N loads, with the central axial load and the prosthetic type 2 being between 100 and 500 N. The centralized oblique loading situation showed no significant difference in stress distribution among any of the loads. Thus, it can be concluded that the stress distribution around the transmaxillary implant favored its biomechanical behavior, since, even with a direct relation between load and area of distribution in some situations, the tension distribution area remained stable with increasing load in most situations.