Mechanical behavior of implant assisted removable partial denture for Kennedy class II.
Journal
Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry
ISSN: 1989-5488
Titre abrégé: J Clin Exp Dent
Pays: Spain
ID NLM: 101603132
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2020
Jan 2020
Historique:
received:
04
11
2019
accepted:
25
11
2019
entrez:
25
1
2020
pubmed:
25
1
2020
medline:
25
1
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This study evaluated the mechanical response of a removable partial denture (RPD) in Kennedy Class II according to being associated or not with implants. Four RPDs were manufactured for a Kennedy Class II: CRPD - Conventional RPD, RPD+1M, RPD+2M and RPD+12M, respectively, signifying implant assisted RPDs with the implant installed in the first molar, second molar, and in the first and second molars. The finite element method was used to determine the most damaged support tooth under compressive load (300N, 10s) and strain gauge analysis was used to evaluate the microstrain. All groups were submitted to a retentive force analysis (0.5 mm/mm, 100kgf). Microstrain and retentive force data were submitted to One-way ANOVA and the Tukey test, all with α=5%. High microstrain was observed in the second premolar adjacent to the edentulous space under compression load ( In cases of Kennedy Class II, the association of RPD with implants in the molar region is a favorable option for patient rehabilitation, reducing the movement of the direct retainer adjacent to the edentulous space, increasing the removal force and decreasing the stress magnitude in the periodontal ligament.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
This study evaluated the mechanical response of a removable partial denture (RPD) in Kennedy Class II according to being associated or not with implants.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
METHODS
Four RPDs were manufactured for a Kennedy Class II: CRPD - Conventional RPD, RPD+1M, RPD+2M and RPD+12M, respectively, signifying implant assisted RPDs with the implant installed in the first molar, second molar, and in the first and second molars. The finite element method was used to determine the most damaged support tooth under compressive load (300N, 10s) and strain gauge analysis was used to evaluate the microstrain. All groups were submitted to a retentive force analysis (0.5 mm/mm, 100kgf). Microstrain and retentive force data were submitted to One-way ANOVA and the Tukey test, all with α=5%.
RESULTS
RESULTS
High microstrain was observed in the second premolar adjacent to the edentulous space under compression load (
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In cases of Kennedy Class II, the association of RPD with implants in the molar region is a favorable option for patient rehabilitation, reducing the movement of the direct retainer adjacent to the edentulous space, increasing the removal force and decreasing the stress magnitude in the periodontal ligament.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31976042
doi: 10.4317/medoral.56533
pii: 56533
pmc: PMC6969961
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e38-e45Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2020 Medicina Oral S.L.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of interest The authors have declared that no conflict of interest exist.
Références
Braz Dent J. 2019 Mar-Apr;30(2):157-163
pubmed: 30970059
J Oral Rehabil. 2012 Oct;39(10):791-8
pubmed: 22882547
J Prosthet Dent. 2002 Jan;87(1):9-14
pubmed: 11807477
J Prosthet Dent. 2014 Nov;112(5):1126-33
pubmed: 24951387
Restor Dent Endod. 2018 Nov 12;43(4):e48
pubmed: 30483471
Braz Dent J. 2015 Oct;26(5):463-7
pubmed: 26647929
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2003 Aug;23(4):353-9
pubmed: 12956479
Implant Dent. 2007 Sep;16(3):270-80
pubmed: 17846543
Dent Clin North Am. 2019 Apr;63(2):263-278
pubmed: 30825990
J Oral Rehabil. 2010 Mar;37(3):225-34
pubmed: 20050984
J Prosthodont Res. 2016 Oct;60(4):282-288
pubmed: 26895972
Implant Dent. 2004 Sep;13(3):218-22
pubmed: 15359156
J Prosthet Dent. 2004 Jul;92(1):8-11
pubmed: 15232557
J Adv Prosthodont. 2014 Apr;6(2):138-45
pubmed: 24843400
J Prosthet Dent. 2017 Jun;117(6):735-742
pubmed: 27914668
J Oral Rehabil. 2005 Mar;32(3):193-205
pubmed: 15707430
J Prosthodont. 2019 Feb;28(2):e675-e681
pubmed: 29235192
Clin Oral Investig. 2018 May;22(4):1641-1649
pubmed: 29101546
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013 Jan;24(1):20-7
pubmed: 22111809
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2019 Mar/Apr;39(2):213-218
pubmed: 30794257
Implant Dent. 2001;10(4):280-4
pubmed: 11813670
J Dent (Tehran). 2014 Sep;11(5):523-30
pubmed: 25628678
J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2016 Oct-Dec;16(4):408-411
pubmed: 27746609
J Clin Exp Dent. 2019 Feb 1;11(2):e119-e125
pubmed: 30805115
J Oral Implantol. 1998;24(3):147-51
pubmed: 9893521
Implant Dent. 2006 Mar;15(1):24-34
pubmed: 16569958