Resumo Introdução Para reabilitação de mandíbulas totalmente edêntulas, a opção por carga imediata determina a utilização de próteses provisórias que esplintem os implantes instalados. Apesar de provisórias com reforço proverem as reabilitações com benefícios biomecânicos, a não adoção desta indicação coexiste em diferentes estudos sobre restaurações imediatas. Objetivo Este estudo avaliou um tipo de prótese para reabilitar mandíbulas pelo conceito “all-on-four”. Material e método: Foi avaliado, in-vitro, o comportamento mecânico de próteses com a infraestrutura modificada, sob ensaio mecânico de flexão unilateral em cantilever. Foram avaliados dois grupos representativos para o conceito “all-on-four”, sendo um grupo teste G1 (n = 10) contendo próteses com infraestrutura modificada e outro controle G2 (n = 10) que incluiu próteses totalmente acrílicas. As amostras foram submetidas à ciclagem térmica com 500 ciclos (5° ± 2 °C por 30 segundos e 55° ± 2 °C pelo mesmo tempo) e submetidas ao ensaio mecânico à flexão sobre o cantilever. Resultado O teste de Mann-Whitney revelou diferença significativa entre G1 e G2 (p<0,001). Na avaliação descritiva, G1 mostrou média de 830,50 N até a fratura inicial em resina e o grupo controle apresentou média de 403,58N. A resistência máxima até a fratura completa foi de 903,03 N para G1 e para G2 de 435,20 N. O componente vertical linear de flexão foi 0,68 mm e 0,39 mm até a fratura inicial da barra, respectivamente para G1 e G2. Conclusão A infraestrutura modificada para o protocolo “all-on-four” proporcionou melhor desempenho mecânico quando comparado ao mesmo modelo de prótese totalmente acrílico.

Abstract Introduction For complete rehabilitation of fully edentulous mandibles, the option for immediate loading determines the use of temporary prostheses that splint the installed implants. Although temporary prostheses with reinforcement provide rehabilitations with biomechanical benefits, the non-adoption of this recommendation coexists in different studies on immediate restorations. Objective This study evaluates a type of prosthesis to restore jaws by the all-on-four concept. Material and method: The mechanical behavior of prostheses with the modified framework was evaluated in vitro, under a cantilever mechanical unilateral bending test. Two representative groups were included in the all-on-four concept, with a G1 test group (n = 10) containing modified frameworks and a G2 control group (n = 10) that included full acrylic prostheses. The samples were submitted to thermal cycling with 500 cycles (5° ± 2 °C for 30 s, and 55° ± 2° for 30 s) and to the mechanical bending test on the cantilever. Result The Mann-Whitney test revealed a significant difference between G1 and G2 (p <0.001). In the descriptive evaluation, G1 averaged 830.50 N until the initial resin fracture, while the control group presented a mean of 403.58N. The maximum resistance until complete fracture was recorded in G1, with a mean of 903.03N, while in G2, a mean of 435.20N was recorded. The linear vertical component of the flexion was 0.68 mm and 0.39 mm until the initial fracture of the bar, respectively for G1 and G2. Conclusion The modified framework for the all-on-four protocol determined better mechanical performance when compared to the same full acrylic prosthesis model.

OBJECTIVE: This in vitro study evaluated the influence of luting agents on ultrasonic vibration time for intraradicular cast post removal. MATERIAL AND METHODS: After endodontic treatment, 30 roots of extracted human canines were embedded in resin cylinders. The post-holes were prepared at 10 mm depth and their impressions were taken using autopolymerizing acrylic resin. After casting procedures using a nickel-chromium alloy, the posts were randomly distributed into 3 groups (n=10) according to the luting material: G1- zinc phosphate (SS White) (control group), G2 - glass ionomer cement (Vidrion C; SS White), and G3- resin cement (C&B; Bisco). In G3, the adhesive procedure was performed before post cementation. After 24 h, the cement line was removed at the post/tooth interface using a fine diamond bur, and the ST-09 tip of an Enac ultrasound unit was applied at maximum power on all surfaces surrounding the posts. The application time was recorded with a chronometer until the post was completely dislodged and data were analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey's test (p<0.05). RESULTS: The roots were removed from the acrylic resin and inspected to detect cracks and/or fractures. The means for G1, G2, and G3 were 168.5, 59.5, and 285 s, respectively, with statistically significant differences among them. Two G3 posts resisted removal, one of which developed a vertical fracture line. CONCLUSIONS: Therefore, the cement type had a direct influence on the time required for ultrasonic post removal. Compared to the zinc phosphate and glass ionomer cements, the resin cement required a longer ultrasonic vibration time.