Resistencia a la tracción de cementos temporales en rehabilitación sobre implantes, estudio in vitro
Cargando...
Fecha
2013
Profesor/a Guía
Facultad/escuela
Idioma
es
Título de la revista
ISSN de la revista
Título del volumen
Editor
Universidad Andrés Bello
Nombre de Curso
Licencia CC
Licencia CC
Resumen
La rehabilitación de pacientes desdentados totales o parciales mediante implantes es una práctica común de la odontología actual. Desde hace algunos años, el concepto de oseointegración representa una revolución ya que permite que los tratamientos sean predecibles y con buenos resultados a largo plazo.
Para rehabilitar implantes existe una amplia gama de posibilidades, en cuanto al tipo de aditamentos, como también al tipo de mecanismo para unir el pilar protésico a la corona. Esto último puede llevarse a cabo mediante: un tornillo, materiales de cementación, o bien una combinación de ambos métodos. Las ventajas y desventajas de cada uno de estos tipos de retención protésica han sido ampliamente investigadas, y finalmente el profesional determina cual utilizar según las características de cada paciente.
Al preferir el método de cementación, esta puede realizarse con cementos permanentes o temporales. En este caso se analizó el comportamiento de distintos cementos temporales en su resistencia a la tracción.
Objetivo: Determinar si existe diferencia significativa entre los distintos cementos
temporales utilizados en rehabilitación sobre implantes, al ser sometidos a fuerzas
traccionales.
Materiales y Método: Para este estudio se utilizaron 2 análogos de implantes Alpha Bio™
introducidos de forma perpendicular sobre una base acrílica de auto polimerización. Para
cada análogo se instaló un pilar recto maquinado para plataforma regular, de la misma
marca.
Se colaron casquetes metálicos específicamente para estos pilares. Estos casquetes tenían
en su porción más coronal un asa circular para permitir la tracción axial mediante un gancho
del mismo material. Para esto se utilizó un dinamómetro para ensayos de tracción.
Estos casquetes fueron cementados sobre los pilares con los cuatro tipos de cementos
analizados: 2 marcas de cementos temporales cada uno en sus versiones con y sin eugenol:
Óxido de Zinc sin eugenol:
- Rely X temp NE™
- Temp bond NE™
Óxido de Zinc con eugenol:
- Temp bond E™
- Rely X temp E™
Conclusión: Los cementos con eugenol presentan menor resistencia a la tracción que los
cementos sin eugenol. Existe diferencia significativa entre los cementos sin eugenol analizados.
Dentro de los cementos sin eugenol analizados, TEMP BOND-NE (KERR) obtuvo valores de
resistencia a la tracción mayores que REL YX TEMP-NE (3M).
Debido a la alta resistencia a la tracción obtenida con TEM BOND-NE podríamos
considerarlo como una opción de cemento definitivo.
lntroduction: lmplant rehabilitation is a common practice for the treatment of partially and totally edentulous patients. For a few years now, Osseointegration has been a revolutionary concept because it allows treatments to be predictable, with good long term results. There is a wide range of possibilities for implants rehabilitation; different kinds of abutments type and also different mechanisms to bond this abutment to the Crown. This union can be made through screw retention, cementation ora combination of both. Several studies have researched the advantages and disadvantages of each method but the final choice is finally based on clinician 's preference. When the cementation method is preferred, bonding can be done with permanent or temporary cement. Resistance to the traction of temporary cement was studied for different types of cement. Purpose: To determine if there is significant difference in resistance to traction forces between different temporary types of cement used in implant rehabilitation. Material and Methods: Two implant analogs from the Brand Alpha Bio were introduced perpendicular to a self polymerization acrylic base. On each of the analogs, a straight pillar for regular platform (same Brand as the analogs) was installed. Specific metallic caps were burned out for this pillar. Those caps included a handle on the coronal portion which allowed performing axial traction with a hook made of the same material. A dynamometer for traction testing was used for this experiment The Caps were cemented on the pillar for each of the four analyzed cements: Zinc Oxide without eugenol: - Rely X temp NE™ - Temp bond NE™ Zinc Oxide with eugenol: - Temp bond E™ - Rely X temp E™ Conclusion: Cement containing eugenol presented lower traction resistance than the ones without eugenol. There is a significant difference between the two brands of cement without eugenol. Temp bond NE™ obtained higher values of resistance to traction than Rely X temp NE™. Because of the high values of traction resistance obtained with temp bond Ne, we could consider it as a permanent cement option.
lntroduction: lmplant rehabilitation is a common practice for the treatment of partially and totally edentulous patients. For a few years now, Osseointegration has been a revolutionary concept because it allows treatments to be predictable, with good long term results. There is a wide range of possibilities for implants rehabilitation; different kinds of abutments type and also different mechanisms to bond this abutment to the Crown. This union can be made through screw retention, cementation ora combination of both. Several studies have researched the advantages and disadvantages of each method but the final choice is finally based on clinician 's preference. When the cementation method is preferred, bonding can be done with permanent or temporary cement. Resistance to the traction of temporary cement was studied for different types of cement. Purpose: To determine if there is significant difference in resistance to traction forces between different temporary types of cement used in implant rehabilitation. Material and Methods: Two implant analogs from the Brand Alpha Bio were introduced perpendicular to a self polymerization acrylic base. On each of the analogs, a straight pillar for regular platform (same Brand as the analogs) was installed. Specific metallic caps were burned out for this pillar. Those caps included a handle on the coronal portion which allowed performing axial traction with a hook made of the same material. A dynamometer for traction testing was used for this experiment The Caps were cemented on the pillar for each of the four analyzed cements: Zinc Oxide without eugenol: - Rely X temp NE™ - Temp bond NE™ Zinc Oxide with eugenol: - Temp bond E™ - Rely X temp E™ Conclusion: Cement containing eugenol presented lower traction resistance than the ones without eugenol. There is a significant difference between the two brands of cement without eugenol. Temp bond NE™ obtained higher values of resistance to traction than Rely X temp NE™. Because of the high values of traction resistance obtained with temp bond Ne, we could consider it as a permanent cement option.
Notas
Tesis (Magíster en Odontología, Especialización en Implantología Oseonintegrada)
Palabras clave
Cementación, Prótesis Dental, Implantes Dentarios, Chile