3 resultados para Smile esthetics
em Biblioteca Digital da Produção Intelectual da Universidade de São Paulo (BDPI/USP)
Resumo:
The microstructure of the crestal alveolar bone is important for both the maintenance of osseointegration and the location of the gingival soft tissues. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the bone microstructure of the alveolar bone and of the interimplant bone in implants inserted at different interimplant distances. The mandibular bilateral premolars of six dogs were extracted, and after 12 weeks, each dog received eight implants, for a total of 48 implants. Two pairs of implants, one for each hemiarch, were separated by 2 mm (group 1) and by 3 mm (group 2). After 12 weeks, the implants received temporary acrylic prostheses. After four more weeks, metallic crowns substituted the temporary prostheses. After an additional 8 weeks the animals were sacrificed and the hemimandibles were removed, dissected, and processed. The longitudinal collagen fiber orientation was 43.2% for the alveolar bone; it was 30.3% for the 2-mm group and 43.9% for the 3-mm group. There was a statistically significant difference between the 2-mm and 3-mm groups (p < .05). The orientation of transverse collagen fibers was 47.8% for the alveolar bone; it was 37.3% for the 2-mm group and 56.3% for the 3-mm group. There was a statistically significant difference between the 2-mm and 3-mm groups (p < .05). The marrow spaces were 34.87% for the alveolar bone, 52.3% for the 2-mm group, and 59.9% for the 3-mm group. There was a statistically significant difference between the alveolar bone and the 3-mm group (p < .05). The low mineral density index was 36.29 for the alveolar bone, 46.76 for the 2-mm group, and 17.91 for the 3-mm group. There was a statistically significant difference between the 2-mm and 3-mm groups (p < .05). The high mineral density was 87.57 for the alveolar bone, 72.58 for the 2-mm group, and 84.91 for the 3-mm group. There was a statistically significant difference between the alveolar bone and the 2-mm group (p < .05). The collagen fiber orientation resulted in statistically significant differences in both the 2-mm and 3-mm groups compared with the alveolar bone. The marrow spaces appeared significantly increased in the 3-mm group compared with the alveolar bone. The low mineral density index was significantly higher in the 2-mm group, while the high mineral density index was significantly higher in the alveolar bone. In conclusion, the interimplant distance should not be less than 3 mm.
Resumo:
This paper reports a case in which a previous traumatic injury at the age of 2 and pulp necrosis to a primary incisor resulted in a rare injury to the permanent successor tooth. The radiographic examination at the age of 9 showed the arrest of root formation of the permanent maxillary right central incisor, which did not erupt. Tooth 11 was extracted and a functional removable space maintainer was prepared. At the age of 17, the patient received an anterior fixed prosthesis for re-establishment of the esthetics, phonetics and deglutition.
Resumo:
Distalization of maxillary molars is indicated for correction of Class II dental malocclusion and for space gain in cases of space deficiency. The ideal treatment with an intraoral fixed appliance for molar distalization should fulfill the following requirements: patient compliance; acceptable esthetics; comfort; minimum anterior anchor loss (as evidenced by inclination of incisors); bodily movement of the molars to avoid undesirable effects and unstable outcomes; and minimum time required during sessions for placement and activations. The purpose of this paper was to present an alternative treatment for space recovery in the area of the maxillary right second premolar when there has been significant mesial movement of the permanent maxillary right first molar. We used a modified appliance that allows unilateral molar distalization in cases of unilateral tooth/arch size discrepancy using the opposite side as anchor, thus reducing the mesialization of the anterior teeth. (Pediatr Dent 2008;30:334-41) Received August 17, 2006 / Last Revision October 17, 2007 / Revision Accepted October 17, 2007