You are in the accessibility menu

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://acervodigital.unesp.br/handle/11449/22839
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorNishioka, Renato Sussumu-
dc.contributor.authorOliveira de Vasconcellos, Luis Gustavo-
dc.contributor.authorde Melo Nishioka, Lea Nogueira Braulino-
dc.date.accessioned2014-05-20T14:05:07Z-
dc.date.accessioned2016-10-25T17:10:35Z-
dc.date.available2014-05-20T14:05:07Z-
dc.date.available2016-10-25T17:10:35Z-
dc.date.issued2009-12-01-
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e3181bcc621-
dc.identifier.citationImplant Dentistry. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, v. 18, n. 6, p. 512-520, 2009.-
dc.identifier.issn1056-6163-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/22839-
dc.identifier.urihttp://acervodigital.unesp.br/handle/11449/22839-
dc.description.abstractPurpose: The objective of this in vitro study was to quantify the strain development of external hexagon. and internal hexagon implant-supported partial prostheses in. straight and offset implant placement configurations.Materials and Methods: Three external hexagon and 3 internal hexagon. implants were embedded in the center of each polyurethane block. Four strain gauges were bonded on the surface of polyurethane. The 20 superstructure occlusal screws were tightened onto the Microunit abutments with a torque of 10 Ncm using the manufacturer's manual of torque-controlling device.Results: There were statistic significant differences in hexagonal ope (P = 0.0210 < 0.05). There were no statistic significant differences in placement configuration (P = 0.7483 > 0.05). The results showed fundamental differences between both conditions.Conclusion: Under the limited conditions of this study the hexagon internal connection displayed higher values of microstrain. than the hexagon. external type implant placement. There was no evidence that there was an advantage of offset placement in reducing the strain around implant. There was no proof from this investigation that the straight placement generated higher microstrain than offset placement. (Implant Dent 2009;18:512-520)en
dc.description.sponsorshipFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)-
dc.format.extent512-520-
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.publisherLippincott Williams & Wilkins-
dc.sourceWeb of Science-
dc.subjectstrain developmenten
dc.subjectexternal hexagonen
dc.subjectinternal hexagonen
dc.subjectstraight implant placementen
dc.subjectoffset implant placementen
dc.titleExternal Hexagon and Internal Hexagon in Straight and Offset Implant Placement: Strain Gauge Analysisen
dc.typeoutro-
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)-
dc.contributor.institutionCETEC-
dc.description.affiliationSão Paulo State Univ UNESP, Sch Dent Sao Jose Campos, Dept Dent Mat & Prosthodont, Sao Jose Dos Campos, Brazil-
dc.description.affiliationCETEC, Inst Sci Technol, Dept Mech Engn, Sao Jose Dos Campos, Brazil-
dc.description.affiliationUnespSão Paulo State Univ UNESP, Sch Dent Sao Jose Campos, Dept Dent Mat & Prosthodont, Sao Jose Dos Campos, Brazil-
dc.description.sponsorshipIdFAPESP: 07 53293-4-
dc.identifier.doi10.1097/ID.0b013e3181bcc621-
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000273101400010-
dc.rights.accessRightsAcesso restrito-
dc.relation.ispartofImplant Dentistry-
Appears in Collections:Artigos, TCCs, Teses e Dissertações da Unesp

There are no files associated with this item.
 

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.