Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem
Retention and mechanical behavior of attachment systems for implant-retained auricular prostheses
dc.contributor.author | Sigua-Rodriguez E.A. | |
dc.contributor.author | Goulart D.R. | |
dc.contributor.author | Santos Z.T. | |
dc.contributor.author | Alvarez-Pinzon N. | |
dc.contributor.author | Olate S. | |
dc.contributor.author | De Albergaria-Barbosa J.R. | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2020-09-02T22:28:16Z | |
dc.date.available | 2020-09-02T22:28:16Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2017 | |
dc.identifier | 10.1097/SCS.0000000000003269 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 28, 1, 134-138 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 10492275 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12728/6257 | |
dc.description | Objective: Auricular prostheses are artificial substitutes for facial defects. The retention of these has often been a problem. This study aimed to evaluate the mechanical behavior of 3 retained auricular prosthetic connections when submitted to a mechanical cycling test. Materials and Methods: Twelve samples with installed implants were obtained and divided into 3 groups according to their retention system with 4 samples in each group. I: bar-clip system; II: magnet system; and III: ball/o-ring system. Each of samples was submitted to the pull-out test during 3240 cycles (f=0.5 Hz) to determine its tensile strength. The mechanical cycling test was performed using the servo-hydraulic machine MTS 810-Flex Test 40 (Eden Prairie, MN) that had a 2.5mm shift at a 10 mm/s velocity. The retaining strength for each of the samples was obtained at 7 intervals. Results: The tensile strength for the group retained by the bar-clip system (29.60 N) was higher with statistically significant difference (P<0.05) when compared with the group retained by the ball/oring system (9.41 N) and magnets system (8.61 N) for all periods assessed. The ball/o-ring system showed loss of retention during the fatigue test (Kruskal-Wallis, chi-squared=17.28; P<0.01). Conclusions: The evaluated systems showed a tensile strength compatible with the clinical use and no fractures of the components were observed. | |
dc.language.iso | en | |
dc.publisher | Lippincott Williams and Wilkins | |
dc.subject | Maxillofacial prosthesis | |
dc.subject | Prosthesis retention | |
dc.subject | Tensile strength | |
dc.subject | biomechanics | |
dc.subject | bone implant interface | |
dc.subject | comparative study | |
dc.subject | external ear | |
dc.subject | human | |
dc.subject | procedures | |
dc.subject | prostheses and orthoses | |
dc.subject | prosthesis complication | |
dc.subject | prosthesis design | |
dc.subject | prosthesis fixation | |
dc.subject | surgery | |
dc.subject | tensile strength | |
dc.subject | Biomechanical Phenomena | |
dc.subject | Bone-Implant Interface | |
dc.subject | Ear, External | |
dc.subject | Humans | |
dc.subject | Prostheses and Implants | |
dc.subject | Prosthesis Design | |
dc.subject | Prosthesis Failure | |
dc.subject | Prosthesis Retention | |
dc.subject | Tensile Strength | |
dc.title | Retention and mechanical behavior of attachment systems for implant-retained auricular prostheses | |
dc.type | Article |