Loading...
Publication
Opções reabilitadoras sobre implantes : aparafusadas versus cimentadas
| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 708.25 KB | Adobe PDF |
Authors
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
Objetivo: Análise e comparação dos dois sistemas de retenção de próteses sobre implantes: cimentada e aparafusada
Materiais e Métodos: A pesquisa foi realizada por meio das bases de dados COCHRANE (Cochrane Libraly), a Biblioteca Virtual da Saúde (BVS) que engloba a Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval Sistem on-line (Medline), LILACS (Literatura Latino- Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde). Além disso, foi consultado o Google Acadêmico para garantir uma abrangência maior na busca por estudos relevantes. Os
critérios de inclusão foram definidos para assegurar que apenas os artigos com rigor científico e relevância clínica fossem considerados.
Resultados: A análise comparativa das próteses cimentadas e aparafusadas evidenciou que cada método apresenta um conjunto distinto de vantagens e desvantagens. As próteses cimentadas são frequentemente elogiadas pela sua estética e pela simplicidade na colocação, enquanto as aparafusadas são valorizadas pela facilidade de remoção e manutenção, além de uma melhor distribuição das forças oclusais. A escolha entre os dois sistemas deve ser fundamentada nas circunstâncias clínicas específicas de cada paciente.
Observou-se também que a durabilidade e a resistência a falhas variam entre os dois métodos, o que pode impactar a decisão clínica.
Conclusão: Conclui-se que tanto as próteses cimentadas como as aparafusadas apresentam vantagens e desvantagens que devem ser cuidadosamente avaliadas no planeamento de reabilitações implantossuportadas. É fundamental que a decisão seja individualizada, tendo em consideração as necessidades específicas do paciente, as condições clínicas e as expectativas em relação ao tratamento. Uma escolha informada e embasada pode não apenas otimizar os resultados clínicos, mas também contribuir para a melhoria da qualidade de vida dos pacientes.
Objective: To analyze and compare two systems of retention for implant-supported prostheses: cemented and screw-retained. Materials and Methods: The research was conducted using the COCHRANE database (Cochrane Library), the Virtual Health Library (BVS), which includes the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (Medline), and LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature). Additionally, Google Scholar was consulted to ensure a broader search for relevant studies. Inclusion criteria were established to ensure that only articles with scientific rigor and clinical relevance were considered. Results: The comparative analysis of cemented and screw-retained prostheses revealed that each method has a distinct set of advantages and disadvantages. Cemented prostheses are often praised for their aesthetics and ease of placement, while screw-retained prostheses are valued for their removability and maintenance, as well as better distribution of occlusal forces. The choice between the two systems should be based on the specific clinical circumstances of each patient. It was also observed that durability and resistance to failure vary between the two methods, which can impact clinical decision-making. Conclusion: It can be concluded that both cemented and screw-retained prostheses present advantages and disadvantages that must be carefully evaluated in the planning of implant-supported rehabilitations. It is essential that the decision is individualized, taking into account the specific needs of the patient, clinical conditions, and treatment expectations. An informed and well-grounded choice can not only optimize clinical outcomes but also contribute to improving the quality of life of patients.
Objective: To analyze and compare two systems of retention for implant-supported prostheses: cemented and screw-retained. Materials and Methods: The research was conducted using the COCHRANE database (Cochrane Library), the Virtual Health Library (BVS), which includes the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (Medline), and LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature). Additionally, Google Scholar was consulted to ensure a broader search for relevant studies. Inclusion criteria were established to ensure that only articles with scientific rigor and clinical relevance were considered. Results: The comparative analysis of cemented and screw-retained prostheses revealed that each method has a distinct set of advantages and disadvantages. Cemented prostheses are often praised for their aesthetics and ease of placement, while screw-retained prostheses are valued for their removability and maintenance, as well as better distribution of occlusal forces. The choice between the two systems should be based on the specific clinical circumstances of each patient. It was also observed that durability and resistance to failure vary between the two methods, which can impact clinical decision-making. Conclusion: It can be concluded that both cemented and screw-retained prostheses present advantages and disadvantages that must be carefully evaluated in the planning of implant-supported rehabilitations. It is essential that the decision is individualized, taking into account the specific needs of the patient, clinical conditions, and treatment expectations. An informed and well-grounded choice can not only optimize clinical outcomes but also contribute to improving the quality of life of patients.
Description
Dissertação para obtenção do grau de Mestre no Instituto Universitário Egas Moniz
Keywords
Coroas aparafusadas Coroas cimentadas Implantes Estética