Following the worldwide trend of developing heavy metal free materials, dental implants aren’t out of this tendency. Over the years, a number of techniques to condition the surface of dental implants have been design...Following the worldwide trend of developing heavy metal free materials, dental implants aren’t out of this tendency. Over the years, a number of techniques to condition the surface of dental implants have been designed and used such as oxide blasting, however the scientific medical community has been concerned about the use of these heavy metals which leads us to investigate and develop new conditioning techniques. The aim of the study was the analysis of the Systhex<span style="font-family:Verdana, Helvetica, Arial;white-space:normal;background-color:#FFFFFF;"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Helvetica, Arial;white-space:normal;background-color:#FFFFFF;"><sup>®</sup></span></span> implant surface in automatic system for the treatment of the surface with acid, where we can identify the surfaces purity level, pore size, deepness and especially the roughness proportionated by the technology of acid conditioning on the titanium surfaces of degree IV dental implants. We conclude that the automatic conditioning of acid attack promoted cleanliness, homogeneity and ideal roughness for the osseointegration process.展开更多
Background: Narrow-diameter implants (3.0 - 3.5 mm range) have been introduced for the replacement of teeth with insufficient bone structure and/or limited mesiodistal or interimplant spaces, and appear to offer clini...Background: Narrow-diameter implants (3.0 - 3.5 mm range) have been introduced for the replacement of teeth with insufficient bone structure and/or limited mesiodistal or interimplant spaces, and appear to offer clinical results similar to those obtained with implants of greater diameter. Studies using extra-narrow-diameter implants (2.8 mm) are scarce. Case Presentation: A 59-year-old male patient received two extra-narrow-diameter implants, 2.8 × 11 mm in the region between elements 11 and 14. Together, two 3.5 × 8.5 mm SYSTHEX®platform 4.1 implants were installed in the region of elements 15 and 16 to provide greater stability in the occlusion. Of four previous implants on the maxillary left side, one in the region between the elements 23 and 24 that was located in a very apical position and vestibularized was removed. The provisional was already installed on the elements 11, 21, and 22 with the metal cores already prepared and with the Globteck®implants in the region of the elements 23, 24, and 27. The functional and esthetic results were satisfactory. Conclusions: Insertion of extra-narrow-diameter implants of 2.8 mm in the maxillary anterior region is a reliable option in a patient with absence of elements 12 and 13, restoring masticatory function and aesthetics in the upper arch.展开更多
文摘Following the worldwide trend of developing heavy metal free materials, dental implants aren’t out of this tendency. Over the years, a number of techniques to condition the surface of dental implants have been designed and used such as oxide blasting, however the scientific medical community has been concerned about the use of these heavy metals which leads us to investigate and develop new conditioning techniques. The aim of the study was the analysis of the Systhex<span style="font-family:Verdana, Helvetica, Arial;white-space:normal;background-color:#FFFFFF;"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Helvetica, Arial;white-space:normal;background-color:#FFFFFF;"><sup>®</sup></span></span> implant surface in automatic system for the treatment of the surface with acid, where we can identify the surfaces purity level, pore size, deepness and especially the roughness proportionated by the technology of acid conditioning on the titanium surfaces of degree IV dental implants. We conclude that the automatic conditioning of acid attack promoted cleanliness, homogeneity and ideal roughness for the osseointegration process.
文摘Background: Narrow-diameter implants (3.0 - 3.5 mm range) have been introduced for the replacement of teeth with insufficient bone structure and/or limited mesiodistal or interimplant spaces, and appear to offer clinical results similar to those obtained with implants of greater diameter. Studies using extra-narrow-diameter implants (2.8 mm) are scarce. Case Presentation: A 59-year-old male patient received two extra-narrow-diameter implants, 2.8 × 11 mm in the region between elements 11 and 14. Together, two 3.5 × 8.5 mm SYSTHEX®platform 4.1 implants were installed in the region of elements 15 and 16 to provide greater stability in the occlusion. Of four previous implants on the maxillary left side, one in the region between the elements 23 and 24 that was located in a very apical position and vestibularized was removed. The provisional was already installed on the elements 11, 21, and 22 with the metal cores already prepared and with the Globteck®implants in the region of the elements 23, 24, and 27. The functional and esthetic results were satisfactory. Conclusions: Insertion of extra-narrow-diameter implants of 2.8 mm in the maxillary anterior region is a reliable option in a patient with absence of elements 12 and 13, restoring masticatory function and aesthetics in the upper arch.
