Estudo in vitro da influência do formato e do tratamento de superfície de implantes odontológicos no torque de inserção, resistência ao arrancamento e frequência de ressonância

• Autor(a) principal: Oliscovicz, Nathalia Ferraz
• Data de Publicação: 2013
• Outros Autores: Valente, Mariana Lima Da Costa, Marcantonio Junior, Elcio [UNESP], Shimano, Antonio Carlos, Reis, Andrea Candido Dos
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNESP
• Texto Completo: https://scielo.br/article/S1807-25772013000400008; http://hdl.handle.net/11449/213146
• topic: Dental implants; torque; bone substitutes; osseointegration; Implantes dentários; torque; substitutos ósseos; osseointegração

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the influence of the shape and surface treatment on the primary stability of dental implants inserted in different substrates through association methods such as insertion torque, pullout strength and resonance frequency. MATERIAL AND METHOD: 32 implants were used with 8 cylindrical treatment Porous (CA), 8 machined cylindrical (MS), 8 cylinder dual treatment Porous (MP) and 8 tapered untreated (CC). The substrates used for inclusion were: pork rib; © Synbone polyurethane, polyurethane National ® (15, 20, 40 PCF) and wood. The insertion torque (TI) was quantified using a digital torque Kratos® wrench, the pullout strength (RA) was measured by means of axial traction performed in an Emic DL-10000® and analysis was also used by the resonance frequency (RF). To obtain the statistical results, we used analysis of variance and Tukey's test (5% significance). RESULT: To analyze the insertion torque, it was found that implants with surface treatment were not statistically different from machined as well as the cylindrical implants did not differ from tapered on all substrates (p>0.05), except © Synbone of polyurethane; in relation to RA, treated and machined implants as well as tapered and cylindrical, showed no statistical difference (p>0.05); FR analysis showed no difference between implants (p>0,05), with the exception of National® polyurethane (20 PCF). CONCLUSION: formats and surface treatment studied showed no significant values when compared implants together and considering the tested substrates showed no statistical difference between the different types of implants.