Full text
| |
| Author(s): |
Mônica Nogueira Pigozzo
Total Authors: 1
|
| Document type: | Doctoral Thesis |
| Press: | São Paulo. |
| Institution: | Universidade de São Paulo (USP). Faculdade de Odontologia (FO/SDO) |
| Defense date: | 2010-08-17 |
| Examining board members: |
Dalva Cruz Lagana;
Marcelo Ferraz Mesquita;
Pedro Yoshito Noritomi;
Eduardo Piza Pellizzer;
Artemio Luiz Zanetti
|
| Advisor: | Dalva Cruz Lagana |
| Abstract | |
The objective of this study was to appraise in vitro the load transmission in bar-clip retention system for overdenture when two implant positions are simulated, using for this purpose the association of photoelastic analysis and finite elements techniques. Therefore, two photoelastic mandible were manufactured with two implants each one, positioned in interforaminal region within 22 mm of distance: (i) model 1, named AFIP, photoelastic model with parallel and vertically oriented implants; and (ii) model 2, named AFII, photoelastic model with 10º angled implants in relation to mandible midline. A bar-clip retention system and an overdenture were fixed over both implants. To simulate oral mucosa were added a 2 mm silicon layer between overdenture prosthesis and photoelastic mandible. This same model was submitted to finite elements analysis in 3D, being attributed the correspondent mechanic properties to each structure analyzed and also being considered homogenous, isotropic and linear characteristics. Four finite elements mandible were simulated, (i) one with parallel implants and (ii) other with 10º angled implants, simulating photoelastic resin in mandible (models 1 and 2, named EFRIP and EFRII respectively); and a another couple of mandibles also with (iii) parallel and (iv) 10º angled implants, simulating cortical and cancellous bones in mandible (models 3 and 4, named EFOIP and EFOII respectively). 0.5; 1.0; 1.5; 2.0 and 3.0 bars loads were applied and correspondent images were analyzed. Results evidenced that there is no similarity in loaded areas between photoelastic resin models, when the implant angle is appraised in models 1 and 2 (AFIP and AFII). Notwithstanding, there are similarity between loaded areas in finite elements model with resin mandible, models 1 and 2 (EFRIP and EFRII), and the same have occurred with finite elements models with bone simulation, models 3 and 4 (EFOIP and EFOII), when appraised implant inclination. When different models are compared with the same implant angulations, was noted that there was similarity in the distribution of loaded areas between models 1 (AFIP and EFRIP), with high concentration of tension forces at the implant apex. Nevertheless, there was no relation between inclined models 2 (AFII and EFRII). At the same direction, there was no relation between photoelastic analysis and finite elements with resin model, with no influence of implant angulations, with finite element models with bone simulation. Considering the limitations of this study, it was concluded that association of photoelastic analysis and finite elements has a high potential value for obtaining information concerning the biomechanics of this kind of prosthesis and retention system; furthermore, there was similarity in areas where loads were applied, when compared photoelastic and finite elements models, provided that finite elements mechanic properties are compatible with photoelastic model, since concentration areas of tension forces suffer changes when finite elements model simulates a mandible with cortical and cancellous bones differentiation. (AU) | |