| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 261.21 KB | Adobe PDF |
Authors
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
Objetivos: O objetivo deste estudo foi comparar as próteses implanto-suportadas parafusadas com as cimentadas, avaliando as vantagens e desvantagens de cada método na prática clínica através de uma revisão narrativa da literatura. Material e métodos: A metodologia foi a revisão de literatura nas bases de dados MEDLINE/Pubmed, Bireme e Science Direct com a utilização de descritores em português e inglês, a saber: “Próteses implanto-suportadas”, “Próteses implanto-suportadas parafusadas”; “Próteses implanto-suportadas cimentadas”; “Implant-supported prostheses”; “Screw”; “Cemented” e variáveis associadas. O período utilizado como critério de inclusão compreendeu os últimos 13 anos, ou seja, utilizaram-se somente artigos publicados entre os anos de 2007 a 2020 e foram selecionados artigos publicados em português e inglês. Resultados: Cada método de retenção tem suas vantagens e desvantagens fazendo com que a escolha do melhor método dependa das características e necessidades de cada paciente. Como resultados, pode-se citar que, independente da técnica, excelentes resultados podem ser alcançados na questão estética, capacidade de resistência, retenção, biomecânica, oclusão, reversibilidade, dentre outras. Conclusões: De uma forma geral, observou-se que as restaurações do tipo cimentadas são normalmente utilizadas nas reabilitações unitárias, onde o apelo estético parece ser o ponto central da escolha, ao passo que as próteses tipo parafusadas ancoram sua principal vantagem como sendo a reversibilidade em caso de problemas associados.
Objectives: The objective of this study was to compare how prostheses implemented with screwed and cemented supports, to evaluate the advantages and advantages of each method in clinical practice through a narrative review of the literature. Material and methods: The methodology was to review the literature in the MEDLINE/Pubmed, Bireme and Science Direct databases using descriptors in Portuguese and English, a saber: “Próteses implanto-suportadas”, “Próteses implanto-suportadas parafusadas”; “Próteses implanto-suportadas cimentadas”; “Prostheses supported by implants”; "Screw"; “Cemented” and associated variables. The period used as an inclusion criterion includes the last 13 years, that is, only articles published between the years 2007 to 2020 and articles published in Portuguese and English are used. Results: Each retention method has advantages and disadvantages, making the best choice depend on the characteristics according to the required for each patient. As a result, it can be mentioned that, regardless of the technique, excellent results can be achieved in terms of aesthetics, resilience, retention, biomechanics, occlusion, reversibility, among others. Conclusions: In general, changes in the type of restoration are usually used in unit rehabilitations, where the aesthetic appeal seems to be the central point of choice, whereas screw-type practices anchor their main advantage as being a reversibility in case associated problems.
Objectives: The objective of this study was to compare how prostheses implemented with screwed and cemented supports, to evaluate the advantages and advantages of each method in clinical practice through a narrative review of the literature. Material and methods: The methodology was to review the literature in the MEDLINE/Pubmed, Bireme and Science Direct databases using descriptors in Portuguese and English, a saber: “Próteses implanto-suportadas”, “Próteses implanto-suportadas parafusadas”; “Próteses implanto-suportadas cimentadas”; “Prostheses supported by implants”; "Screw"; “Cemented” and associated variables. The period used as an inclusion criterion includes the last 13 years, that is, only articles published between the years 2007 to 2020 and articles published in Portuguese and English are used. Results: Each retention method has advantages and disadvantages, making the best choice depend on the characteristics according to the required for each patient. As a result, it can be mentioned that, regardless of the technique, excellent results can be achieved in terms of aesthetics, resilience, retention, biomechanics, occlusion, reversibility, among others. Conclusions: In general, changes in the type of restoration are usually used in unit rehabilitations, where the aesthetic appeal seems to be the central point of choice, whereas screw-type practices anchor their main advantage as being a reversibility in case associated problems.
Description
Keywords
Implantes dentários Próteses implanto‒suportadas Próteses implanto-suportadas parafusadas Próteses implanto-suportadas cimentadas Dental Implants Implant-supported prostheses Screwed implant-supported prostheses Cemented implant-supported prostheses