Study of two rehabilitation systems with dental implants submitted to immediate loading: clinical and radiographic evaluations, and stability using resonance frequency analysis / Estudo de dois sistemas de reabilitação com implantes submetidos à ativação imediata: análise clínica, radiográfica e da estabilidade, por frequência de ressonância

AUTOR(ES)
DATA DE PUBLICAÇÃO

2007

RESUMO

Two implant-supported rehabilitation systems were evaluated considering their biomechanical behavior, the area of prosthetic stability, cantilever extensions, stability using resonance frequency analysis (RFA) and clinical parameters, such as: modified plaque index (PI), modified bleeding index (BI), suppuration, distance between the implant shoulder and the mucosal margin (DIM), probing pocket depth (PD), probing attachment level (PAL), bleeding on probing (BP), thickness (TM) width (WM) of keratinized mucosa and radiographic analysis. One hundred and four implants had been installed in twenty six patients, submitted to immediate loading and divided into two groups: A (n=16, All-on-4®-Nobel Biocare) e B (n=10, Neopronto®-Neodent). The prosthesis had been installed in average time of 32h (T0), and controls made in (T6), 12 (T12) and 24 months (T24). As result, the success rate was 100% for the group A and 90% for the group B for both implants and prosthesis. Significant differences (p<0,05) 10,96mm and 18,81mm had been presented between posterior cantilever and the resistance arm (RA) 13,87mm and 5,50mm, respectively for the groups A and B. The stability area, in the group A was of 373,5mm2 and in B of 112,8mm2; the average of RFA (in ISQ) of the group A T0= 68,62; T6=64,40; T12=67,07; T24=66,53 and of the group B T0= 68,37; T6=66,29; T12=67,09; T24=67,10, with differences (p<0,05) between the periods (Group A) and implant position (Group B). The PI in group A was of 1,0 and 0,7 and 0,6 and 0,9 for group B, o BI (0,7), suppuration (absent), DP (presence) in group A=50% and 37,9%; group B=70,1 and 52,1%, in the control of 12 and 24 months, did not present statistical differences between the groups. The average (in mm) of WM for the group A (2,05 and 2,21) and B (2,29 and 2,40) and TM group A (1,53 and 1,56) and B (1,31 and 1,43), DIM of group A (2,54 and 2,52) and B (0,18mm and -0,12mm), DP group.

ASSUNTO(S)

resonance-frequency analysis análise de freqüência de ressonância dental implants implant stability implantes osseointegrados prótese sobre implantes immediate loading carga imediata implant-supported dental prosthesis

ACESSO AO ARTIGO

Documentos Relacionados