Awards Nomination 20+ Million Readerbase
Google Scholar citation report
Citations : 1817

Dentistry received 1817 citations as per Google Scholar report

Flyer image
Dentistry peer review process verified at publons
Flyer image
Indexed In
  • Genamics JournalSeek
  • JournalTOCs
  • CiteFactor
  • Ulrich's Periodicals Directory
  • RefSeek
  • Hamdard University
  • EBSCO A-Z
  • Directory of Abstract Indexing for Journals
  • OCLC- WorldCat
  • Publons
  • Geneva Foundation for Medical Education and Research
  • Euro Pub
  • Google Scholar
View More
Useful Links
Share This Page
Journal Flyer
Flyer image
Open Access Journals
View More
Influence of the number and design of implant, implant/abutment connection and attachment systems on the stress distribution of mandibular implant retained overdentures
15th Euro Congress on Dental & Oral Health
October 24-26, 2016 Rome, Italy

Marina Xavier Pisani

Piracicaba Dental School, Brazil

Posters & Accepted Abstracts: Dentistry

Abstract:

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 Postdoctoral student at Piracicaba Dental School (Unicamp). She has published 20 papers in reputed journals of Dental Prosthodontics.

Email: mxpisani@hotmail.com

PDF HTML