Knowledge of the magnetic field of a nerve is of interest for the application of external electromagnetic therapy to regenerate injured nerves. The aim of this work is to the theoretical study of the magnetic field generated in the nerves when they act as current conductors and thus determine how their hyperbolic curves are, within the concept of hyperbolic medicine. Using Internet search engines and various databases (Medline, Google Scholar, Researchgate, Scielo), a bibliographic review of scientific papers related to the electromagnetic field generated in the nerves, when they act as current conductors, has been carried out. For this work we use, theoretically, the right-hand rule in electromagnetism. So, we apply it to a model nerve, to determine what its hyperbolic magnetic field is like. The conclusions are: a) Hyperbolic curves are very common in nature and human physiology. The lines of force of an electromagnetic field act on human physiology through hyperbolic curves. b) Human physiology and a nerve can be divided into smaller fragments like a magnet do and maintain their same characteristics. c) A nerve fragment is a conducting wire of electric current that generates a transversal magnetic field, according to the right-hand rule in electromagnetism. That magnetic field has hyperbolic lines of force that follow a counterclockwise helical path.

This report presents the case of a 62-year-old man, who went to the dentist's office in May 2022 to rehabilitate the edentulous maxillary area. It was planned to place implants in positions 16, 14, 12, 22, 24, and 25, with a delayed technique in the placement of the fixed prosthesis. The implant 24 had a divergent position towards buccal. There was also an asymmetry in the prosthesis, since implants 24 and 25 were closer to each other, to avoid the proximity of the maxillary sinus on the left side, while piece 16 could be placed on the right side. The non-parallel placement of an implant is not a complication, but rather an unscheduled inconvenience. In many cases, it depends on the availability of bone to be able to place the implants in the positions programmed as ideal. To improve esthetics in screw channel 24, a making agent was applied. We have found it more reasonable to place tooth 16, even though it results in an asymmetric prosthesis. It is a tooth that is useful for the patient to chew and the asymmetry is minimal, concerning the whole of the prosthesis. Bone limitations in width and depth condition the position and angulation of the implants. The divergence and asymmetry of these implants also condition the way of making the fixed prosthesis on them. The choice between a cemented or screw-retained prosthesis is not essential, since in both cases a good oral, functional, and aesthetic restoration can be made.

The following is a clinical case of a screw-retained prosthesis on two implants with different designs and manufacturers. A 73-year-old man visited the dentist in January 2023 to rehabilitate the edentulous right area of the mandible. In December 2018 another dentist placed implants (Biohorizons, Madrid. Spain) in positions 45 and 46 with a metal-porcelain bridge over both. In 2022 he lost implant 45 (Biohorizons tapered internal 3.8 x 9) and with it also the bridge, although he still had implant 46 (Biohorizons tapered short 4.6 x 7.5). On the day of surgery, a simple opening flap was performed and drills were used sequentially until a 4 x 8 mm Galimplant IPX implant (Sarria, Spain) was placed in position 45. After a period of four months, the impression abutments of implants 46 and 45 were attached with dental floss and flowable composite, and an open-tray impression was taken. One week later, the screwed metal-porcelain fixed prosthesis was placed on both implants. It is difficult to find bibliographic information about fixed prostheses on implants manufactured by different companies and placed in the same patient. The placement of a prosthesis on two implants from different manufacturers is not a complication, but rather an unscheduled inconvenience. The clinical case presented allows us to point out that a fixed prosthesis on implants from different manufacturers can give excellent results.