Avaliação clínica e radiográfica das complicações técnicas em próteses sobre implantes

The evaluation criteria of the cases treated with dental implants are based on clinical and radiographic tests. In this context it is important to conduct research to determine prognosis of different types of prosthetic rehabilitation and determination of the main problems affecting this type of treatment. Thus, the objective of this study was to assess the prosthetic conditions of individuals rehabilitated with implant-supported prosthesis. In this cross-sectional study 153 patients were treated, accounting for a sample of 509 implants. The failures were observed by clinical and radiographic examination. The results showed that the fracture (0.2%) loss (0.4%) and loosening of the screws (3.3%) were failures are less frequent. The fracture structures as the resin (12.4%), porcelain (5.5%) and metallic (1.5%), loss of resin that covers the screw (23.8%) and loss of retention overdentures on implants (18.6%) had a higher occurrence. The failure of adaptation between the abutment and the implant (6.9%) and especially between the prosthesis and the abutment (25.4%) had a high prevalence and, when related to other parameters showed a significant association, particularly with the cemented prosthesis (OR = 6.79). It can be concluded that to minimize the appearance of failures, protocols must be observed from diagnosis to the settlement and control of prostheses on implants, particularly with respect to technical steps of the making of the prosthesis and care in radiographic evaluating the fit between their components

Análise cefalométrica: ortodontistas x radiologistas

Cephalometric analysis is the mensuration of linear and angular measures through demarcation points as distances and lines on teleradiography, and is considered of fundamental importance for diagnosis and orthodontic planning. In this manner, the objective of this research was to compare cephalometric measurements obtained by dentists and radiologists from the analysis of the same radiograph, in a computerized cephalometric analysis program. All research participants marked 18 cephalometric points on a 14-inch notebook computer, as directed by the program itself (Radiocef 2®). From there, they generated 14 cephalometric parameters including skeletal, dental-skeletal, dental and soft tissue. In order to verify the intra-examiner agreement, 10 professionals from each group repeated the marking of the points with a minimum interval of eight days between the two markings. The intra-group variability was calculated based on the coefficients of variation (CV). The comparison between groups was performed using the Student t-test for normally distributed variables, and using the Mann-Whitney test for those with non-normal distribution. In the group of orthodontists, the measurements of Pog and 1-NB, SL, S-Ls Line, S-Li Line and 1.NB showed high internal variability. In the group of radiologists, the same occurred with the values of Pog and 1-NB, S-Ls Line, S-Li Line and 1.NA. In the comparison between groups, all the analyzed linear values and two angular values showed statistically significant differences between radiologists and dentists (p <0.05). According to the results, the interexaminer error in cephalometric analysis requires more attention, but does not come from a specific class of specialists, being either dentists or radiologists.