| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 568 KB | Adobe PDF |
Authors
Abstract(s)
Introdução:Atualmente, a colocação de um implante dentário é um dos tratamentos de eleição para reabilitar uma zona edêntula. O pilar de implante dentário tem um papel fundamental na interação entre o sistema de implante e os tecidos peri-implantares. Inicialmente todos os pilares eram pré-fabricados, atualmente existem pilares customizados que seguem a forma e a inclinação específica para cada caso. Objetivos: O objetivo deste estudo é analisar as diferenças clínicas e radiográficas na avaliação de implantes dentários unitários reabilitados com pilares protéticos customizados comparativamente aos pilares pré-fabricados. Materiais e Métodos: Trinta e um pacientes com uma média de idade de 54.81, tratados com 39 implantes dentários unitários foram incluídos neste estudo, deste grupo 13 pilares são pré-fabricados e 18 pilares feitos através do sistema Computer-Assisted Design/Computer-Assisted Manufacturing (CAD/CAM). Para que fosse possível reproduzir a posição das radiografias usou-se uma chave de silicone elaborada em T0 (momento da colocação da coroa), com essa mesma chave foram feitas as radiografias periapicais um ano depois (T1). Resultados: Um total de 31 pacientes, incluindo 39 implantes, participaram neste estudo. Verifica-se que no momento inicial e após um ano houve em termos médios, perdas ósseas de - 0,144±0,55 mm (grupo A) e de -0,108±0,51 mm (grupo B). O sexo masculino teve uma POM maior (-0,257±0,665) do que o sexo feminino (-0,052±0,526), após um ano. Pacientes com história de periodontite mostraram maior POM (-0,778±0,670) do que paciente sem historial desta patologia (-0,060±0,522). Conclusão: A perda óssea marginal em implantes tratados com pilares customizados e pilares préfabricados após um ano de tratamento apresenta uma evolução equitativa, sem diferenças significativas entre os dois grupos em estudo.
Introduction: Currently, the placement of a dental implant is one of the selection procedures to rehabilitate an edentulous area. The dental implant abutment plays a fundamental role in the interaction between the implant system and the peri-implant tissues. Initially, all abutments were prefabricated, currently there are customized abutments that follow a specific shape and inclination for each case. Aim: To analyze the clinical and radiographic differences in the evaluation of dental unit implants rehabilitated with customized prosthetic abutments compared to prefabricated abutments. Materials and Methods: Thirty-one patients with an average age of 54.81, treated with 39 dental implants were included in this study, of this group 13 abutments are prefabricated and 18 abutments made using the Computer-Assisted Design / Computer-Assisted Manufacturing (CAD / CAM). To make it possible to reproduce the position of the radiographs, a silicone key made in T0 (when the crown was placed) was used, with that same key the periapical radiographs were taken one year later (T1). Results: A total of 31 patients, including 39 implants, participated in this study. It appears that in the initial moment and after one year, bone changes of -0.144 ± 0.55 mm (group A) and -0.108 ± 0.51 mm (group B) occurred on average. The male sex had a higher MBL (-0.257 ± 0.655) than the female sex (-0.052 ± 0.526), after one year. Patients with a history of periodontitis showed a higher MBL (-0.778 ± 0.670) than patients without a history of this pathology (-0.060 ± 0.522). Conclusion: Marginal bone loss in implants defined with customized abutments and prefabricated abutments after one year of treatment presents an equitable evolution, with no significant differences between the two study groups.
Introduction: Currently, the placement of a dental implant is one of the selection procedures to rehabilitate an edentulous area. The dental implant abutment plays a fundamental role in the interaction between the implant system and the peri-implant tissues. Initially, all abutments were prefabricated, currently there are customized abutments that follow a specific shape and inclination for each case. Aim: To analyze the clinical and radiographic differences in the evaluation of dental unit implants rehabilitated with customized prosthetic abutments compared to prefabricated abutments. Materials and Methods: Thirty-one patients with an average age of 54.81, treated with 39 dental implants were included in this study, of this group 13 abutments are prefabricated and 18 abutments made using the Computer-Assisted Design / Computer-Assisted Manufacturing (CAD / CAM). To make it possible to reproduce the position of the radiographs, a silicone key made in T0 (when the crown was placed) was used, with that same key the periapical radiographs were taken one year later (T1). Results: A total of 31 patients, including 39 implants, participated in this study. It appears that in the initial moment and after one year, bone changes of -0.144 ± 0.55 mm (group A) and -0.108 ± 0.51 mm (group B) occurred on average. The male sex had a higher MBL (-0.257 ± 0.655) than the female sex (-0.052 ± 0.526), after one year. Patients with a history of periodontitis showed a higher MBL (-0.778 ± 0.670) than patients without a history of this pathology (-0.060 ± 0.522). Conclusion: Marginal bone loss in implants defined with customized abutments and prefabricated abutments after one year of treatment presents an equitable evolution, with no significant differences between the two study groups.
Description
Keywords
Perda óssea marginal Alteração óssea marginal Pilar Marginal bone loss Marginal bone change Abutment