Resumo Introdução O conhecimento da biomecânica de implantes de diâmetro reduzido indica dimensões seguras para uso clínico. Objetivo O objetivo do presente estudo foi comparar biomecanicamente implantes de diâmetro regular e reduzido para suporte de próteses implantossuportadas unitárias na região anterior da maxila por meio de análise de elementos finitos 3D (3D-FEA). Material e método Quatro modelos 3D-FEA foram desenvolvidos a partir de recomposição de tomografia computadorizada e dados da literatura: um bloco ósseo na região incisiva lateral superior direita com implante e coroa. M1: 3,75 x 13 mm, M2: 3,75 x 8,5 mm, M3: 2,9 x 13 mm e M4: 2,9 x 8,5 mm. Foi aplicada carga de 178 N nos ângulos 0, 30 e 60 graus em relação ao longo eixo do implante. Foram avaliados mapas de tensão de Von Mises, tensão principal máxima e microdeformação. Resultado: M3 e M4 apresentaram maiores valores de tensão e microdeformação que M1 e M2, principalmente quando foram aplicadas forças inclinadas. Porém, M3 apresentou comportamento biomecânico melhor do que M4. Conclusão Pode-se concluir que reduzir o diâmetro dos implantes pode prejudicar a biomecânica durante a aplicação de forças, mas a distribuição e intensidade das tensões, bem como os valores de microdeformação podem ser melhorados se o comprimento do implante for aumentado. clínico D 3DFEA. 3DFEA DFEA FEA . (3D-FEA) literatura coroa M 375 3 75 3,7 1 M2 85 8 5 8, 29 2 9 2, 17 0 6 Mises Resultado inclinadas Porém Podese Pode tensões aumentado (3D-FEA 37 7 3,

Abstract Introduction Narrow diameter implants biomechanics knowledge indicates safe dimensions for clinical use. Objective Purpose of the present study was biomechanically to compare regular and narrow diameter implants to support single implant-supported prosthesis in the anterior region of the maxilla by 3D finite element analysis (3D-FEA). Material and method Four 3D-FEA models were developed form CT scan recompositing and literature data: a bone block in the right upper lateral incisive region with implant and crown. M1: 3.75 x 13 mm, M2: 3.75 x 8.5 mm, M3: 2.9 x 13 mm and M4: 2.9 x 8.5 mm. It was applied load was of 178 N at 0, 30 and 60 degrees in relation to implant long axis. Von Mises stress, maximum principal stress and microdeformation maps were evaluated. Result M3 and M4 did show higher tension and higher microdeformation values than M1 and M2, especially when inclined forces were applied. However, M3 presented enhanced biomechanical behavior than M4. Conclusion It can be concluded that reduce the diameter of the implants can disadvantage to the biomechanics during the application of forces, but the distribution and intensity of the stresses, as well as the micro deformation values can be improved if the length of the implant is increased. use implantsupported supported D 3DFEA. 3DFEA DFEA FEA . (3D-FEA) data crown M 375 3 75 3.7 1 M2 85 8 5 8. 29 2 9 2. 17 0 6 axis evaluated However stresses increased (3D-FEA 37 7 3.

Abstract The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of welding techniques on implant-supported prostheses and determine whether they contribute to a better adaptation compared with a one-piece cast. A search was conducted using the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases, and articles published until November 2017 were obtained from these databases. This review followed the PRISMA criteria and is registered on the PROSPERO platform (CRD42017081865). The PICO question was “Do welding procedures in one-piece cast implant-supported frameworks influence implant/abutment-framework marginal misfits?” Eleven studies were selected for a qualitative analysis, and seven studies were selected for a quantitative analysis. A total of 189 specimens were fabricated using different materials (cp-Ti, Ni-Cr, Cr-Co, and noble alloys), and welding techniques such as laser welding, conventional welding, tungsten inert gas, and brazing were applied. A vertical marginal misfit was measured using an optical microscope, a stereomicroscope, and/or a scanning electron microscopy. The qualitative analysis in the studies demonstrated a positive effect of the welding techniques on the adaptation of the infrastructures. The meta-analysis confirmed the results (p < 0.00001; MD: -36.14; 95%CI: -48.69 to -23.59). Within the limitations of this study and regarding the heterogeneity of the samples, we conclude that the soldering point technique is effective for obtaining relatively low values of marginal misfit, with laser welding as the most effective technique. However, additional studies were recommended due to the heterogeneity of different variables (alloys, connection, and misfit evaluation) in the included studies.

Abstract This study compared the survival rate of dental implants, amount of marginal bone loss, and rates of complications (biological and prosthetic) between short implants and long implants placed after maxillary sinus augmentation. This systematic review has been registered at PROSPERO under the number (CRD42017073929). Two reviewers searched the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Cochrane Library databases. Eligibility criteria included randomized controlled trials, comparisons between short implants and long implants placed after maxillary sinus augmentation in the same study, and follow-up for >6 months. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials was used to assess the quality and risk of bias of the included studies. The search identified 1366 references. After applying the inclusion criteria, 11 trials including 420 patients who received 911 dental implants were considered eligible. No significant difference was observed in the survival rate [p = 0.86; risk ratio (RR): 1.08; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.46–2.52] or in the amount of marginal bone loss (p = 0.08; RR: −0.05; 95%CI: −0.10 to 0.01). However, higher rates of biological complications for long implants associated with maxillary sinus augmentation were observed (p < 0.00001; RR: 0.21; 95%CI: 0.10–0.41), whereas a higher prosthetic complication rate for short implants was noted (p = 0.010; RR: 3.15; 95%CI: 1.32–7.51). Short implant placement is an effective alternative because of fewer biological complications and similar survival and marginal bone loss than long implant placement with maxillary sinus augmentation. However, the risk of mechanical complications associated with the prostheses fitted on short implants should be considered.