euro-dental-2016_posters-accepted-abstracts

8 / 37

Page 69
Notes:
conferenceseries.com
Volume 6, Issue 9 (Suppl) Dentistry 2016
ISSN: 2161-1122 Dentistry, an open access journal Euro Dental Congress 2016
October 24-26, 2016
October 24-26, 2016 Rome, Italy
15th Euro Congress on
Dental & Oral Health
Marina Xavier Pisani, Dentistry 2016, 6:9 (Suppl)
Influence of the number and design of implant, implant/abutment connection and attachment systems
on the stress distribution of mandibular implant retained overdentures
Marina Xavier Pisani
Piracicaba Dental School, Brazil
This study evaluated the stress behavior of single (S) and two (T) implants retained mandibular overdentures on periimplantar
and alveolar bone regions. Photoelastic mandible models (n=14) were obtained from transfer impression of implant analogs
inserted in prototypes varying implant locations in the canines or middle regions, design of implants as regular (RI) or one-piece mini
implants (MI), implant/abutment connection as morse taper (CM), internal hexagon (HI), external hexagon (HE) and attachments
as ball (B) and equator (E). The S and T overdentures over the photoelastic models (RI/HI/B); (RI/HE/B); (MI/B); (RI/CM/E); (RI/
HI/E); (RI/HE/E) were positioned on a circular polariscope, submitted to a bilateral load (150 N) on first molars and photographed.
Stress distribution was qualitatively analyzed (software fringes) according to isochromatic fringes orders (0 black; 1 violet/blue
transition; 2, 3, 4 red/green transition); the greater the number and proximity of the fringes, the higher the stress. The lowest stress on
periimplantar was found in (MI/B order 1) followed by (RI/CM/E order 1); (RI/CM/B order 1); (RI/HI/B order 1); (RI/HI/E order 1
and 2); (RI/HE/E order 2 and 3), (RI/HE/B order 2 and 3) for S group and in (MI/B order 1), (RI/HI/B order 1); (RI/CM/B order 1);
(RI/HE/B order 1); (RI/HE/E order 1 and 2); (RI/HI/E order 2), (RI/CM/B order 2) for T group. The worst situation was presented
by S groups (RI/HE/B) and (RI/HE/E). Overall, for MI, the phostoelasticity showed the lowest stress on implants and the highest and
best distributed stress on alveolar bone. Both attachments presented similar stress behavior.
Biography
Marina Xavier Pisani has completed her PhD from University of Sao Paulo and a partnership with McGill University in Canada. Currently she is, she is a Post-
doctoral student at Piracicaba Dental School (Unicamp). She has published 20 papers in reputed journals of Dental Prosthodontics.