Comparison of methods to evaluate implant-abutment interface

Comparison of methods to evaluate implant-abutment interface

AIM: To compare two main methods of two-dimensional measurement of fit at the implant prosthodontic interface, testing the hypothesis that optical microscopy (OM) can reliably and efficiently scanning electronic microscopy (SEM). METHODS: Four frameworks with four titanium abutments joined with titanium bars were used. The implant-abutment interfaces were examined by three different methods, forming 3 groups: analysis by OM (40x), and analysis by SEM at 300x and 500x. Readings were taken at the mesial and distal proximal surfaces on the horizontal and vertical axes of each implant (n=32). One-way ANOVA with a significance level of 5% was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Neither the horizontal fit nor vertical fit values of the 3 groups presented statistically significant differences (p=0.410 and p=0.543). CONCLUSIONS: OM was found to be an accurate two-dimensional method for abutment-framework or implant-abutment interface measurements, with lower costs than SEM. SEM micrographs at 500x presented technical difficulties for the readings that might produce different results.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Faria,Karina Oliveira de, Silveira-Júnior,Clébio Domingues da, Silva-Neto,João Paulo da, Mattos,Maria da Glória Chiarello de, Silva,Marlete Ribeiro da, Neves,Flávio Domingues das
Format: Digital revista
Language:English
Published: Faculdade de Odontologia de Piracicaba - UNICAMP 2013
Online Access:http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-32252013000100008
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
id oai:scielo:S1677-32252013000100008
record_format ojs
spelling oai:scielo:S1677-322520130001000082013-06-04Comparison of methods to evaluate implant-abutment interfaceFaria,Karina Oliveira deSilveira-Júnior,Clébio Domingues daSilva-Neto,João Paulo daMattos,Maria da Glória Chiarello deSilva,Marlete Ribeiro daNeves,Flávio Domingues das dental implant scanning electron microscopy methodology AIM: To compare two main methods of two-dimensional measurement of fit at the implant prosthodontic interface, testing the hypothesis that optical microscopy (OM) can reliably and efficiently scanning electronic microscopy (SEM). METHODS: Four frameworks with four titanium abutments joined with titanium bars were used. The implant-abutment interfaces were examined by three different methods, forming 3 groups: analysis by OM (40x), and analysis by SEM at 300x and 500x. Readings were taken at the mesial and distal proximal surfaces on the horizontal and vertical axes of each implant (n=32). One-way ANOVA with a significance level of 5% was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Neither the horizontal fit nor vertical fit values of the 3 groups presented statistically significant differences (p=0.410 and p=0.543). CONCLUSIONS: OM was found to be an accurate two-dimensional method for abutment-framework or implant-abutment interface measurements, with lower costs than SEM. SEM micrographs at 500x presented technical difficulties for the readings that might produce different results.info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessFaculdade de Odontologia de Piracicaba - UNICAMPBrazilian Journal of Oral Sciences v.12 n.1 20132013-03-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articletext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-32252013000100008en10.1590/S1677-32252013000100008
institution SCIELO
collection OJS
country Brasil
countrycode BR
component Revista
access En linea
databasecode rev-scielo-br
tag revista
region America del Sur
libraryname SciELO
language English
format Digital
author Faria,Karina Oliveira de
Silveira-Júnior,Clébio Domingues da
Silva-Neto,João Paulo da
Mattos,Maria da Glória Chiarello de
Silva,Marlete Ribeiro da
Neves,Flávio Domingues das
spellingShingle Faria,Karina Oliveira de
Silveira-Júnior,Clébio Domingues da
Silva-Neto,João Paulo da
Mattos,Maria da Glória Chiarello de
Silva,Marlete Ribeiro da
Neves,Flávio Domingues das
Comparison of methods to evaluate implant-abutment interface
author_facet Faria,Karina Oliveira de
Silveira-Júnior,Clébio Domingues da
Silva-Neto,João Paulo da
Mattos,Maria da Glória Chiarello de
Silva,Marlete Ribeiro da
Neves,Flávio Domingues das
author_sort Faria,Karina Oliveira de
title Comparison of methods to evaluate implant-abutment interface
title_short Comparison of methods to evaluate implant-abutment interface
title_full Comparison of methods to evaluate implant-abutment interface
title_fullStr Comparison of methods to evaluate implant-abutment interface
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of methods to evaluate implant-abutment interface
title_sort comparison of methods to evaluate implant-abutment interface
description AIM: To compare two main methods of two-dimensional measurement of fit at the implant prosthodontic interface, testing the hypothesis that optical microscopy (OM) can reliably and efficiently scanning electronic microscopy (SEM). METHODS: Four frameworks with four titanium abutments joined with titanium bars were used. The implant-abutment interfaces were examined by three different methods, forming 3 groups: analysis by OM (40x), and analysis by SEM at 300x and 500x. Readings were taken at the mesial and distal proximal surfaces on the horizontal and vertical axes of each implant (n=32). One-way ANOVA with a significance level of 5% was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Neither the horizontal fit nor vertical fit values of the 3 groups presented statistically significant differences (p=0.410 and p=0.543). CONCLUSIONS: OM was found to be an accurate two-dimensional method for abutment-framework or implant-abutment interface measurements, with lower costs than SEM. SEM micrographs at 500x presented technical difficulties for the readings that might produce different results.
publisher Faculdade de Odontologia de Piracicaba - UNICAMP
publishDate 2013
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-32252013000100008
work_keys_str_mv AT fariakarinaoliveirade comparisonofmethodstoevaluateimplantabutmentinterface
AT silveirajuniorclebiodominguesda comparisonofmethodstoevaluateimplantabutmentinterface
AT silvanetojoaopauloda comparisonofmethodstoevaluateimplantabutmentinterface
AT mattosmariadagloriachiarellode comparisonofmethodstoevaluateimplantabutmentinterface
AT silvamarleteribeiroda comparisonofmethodstoevaluateimplantabutmentinterface
AT nevesflaviodominguesdas comparisonofmethodstoevaluateimplantabutmentinterface
_version_ 1756427700200800256

Similar Items