Comparison of Tensile Bond Strength of Fixed-Fixed Versus Cantilever Single- and Double-Abutted Resin-Bonded Bridges Dental Prosthesis.
Maryland bridge
Rochette bridge
bond strength
cantilever
debonding
dental prosthesis
fixed prosthesis
fixed-fixed
properties
resin-bonded
Journal
Materials (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 1996-1944
Titre abrégé: Materials (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101555929
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 Aug 2022
19 Aug 2022
Historique:
received:
05
07
2022
revised:
12
08
2022
accepted:
14
08
2022
entrez:
26
8
2022
pubmed:
27
8
2022
medline:
27
8
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses (RBFDP) are minimally invasive alternatives to traditional full-coverage fixed partial dentures as they rely on resin cements for retention. This study compared and evaluated the tensile bond strength of three different resin-bonded bridge designs, namely, three-unit fixed-fixed, two-unit cantilever single abutment, and three-unit cantilever double-abutted resin-bonded bridge. Furthermore, the study attempted to compare the tensile bond strengths of the Maryland and Rochette types of resin-bonded bridges. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of seventy-five extracted maxillary incisors were collected and later were mounted on the acrylic blocks. Three distinct resin-bonded metal frameworks were designed: three-unit fixed-fixed (n = 30), two-unit cantilever single abutment (n = 30), and a three-unit cantilever double abutment (n = 30). The main groups were further divided into two subgroups based on the retainer design such as Rochette and Maryland. The different prosthesis designs were cemented to the prepared teeth. Later, abutment preparations were made on all specimens keeping the preparation as minimally invasive and esthetic oriented. Impression of the preparations were made using polyvinyl siloxane impression material, followed by pouring cast using die stone. A U-shaped handle of 1.5 mm diameter sprue wax with a 3 mm hole in between was attached to the occlusal surface of each pattern. The wax patterns were sprued and cast in a cobalt-chromium alloy. The castings were cleaned by sandblasting, followed by finishing and polishing. Lastly, based on the study group, specimens for Rochette bridge were perforated to provide mechanical retention between resin cement and metal, whereas the remaining 15 specimens were sandblasted on the palatal side to provide mechanical retention (Maryland bridge). In order to evaluate the tensile bond strength, the specimens were subjected to tensile forces on a universal testing machine with a uniform crosshead speed. The fixed-fixed partial prosthesis proved superior to both cantilever designs, whereas the single abutment cantilever design showed the lowest tensile bond strength. Maryland bridges uniformly showed higher bond strengths across all framework designs. Within the limitations of this study, the three-unit fixed-fixed design and Maryland bridges had greater bond strengths, implying that they may demonstrate lower clinical failure than cantilever designs and Rochette bridges.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36013880
pii: ma15165744
doi: 10.3390/ma15165744
pmc: PMC9416637
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017 Nov;28(11):1421-1432
pubmed: 28191679
Int J Prosthodont. 2000 Jan-Feb;13(1):25-8
pubmed: 11203604
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1995 Jun;15(3):238-47
pubmed: 7558657
Prim Dent Care. 2002 Jul;9(3):87-91
pubmed: 12221757
J Dent Res. 1992 Nov;71(11):1822-5
pubmed: 1401445
Int J Prosthodont. 2000 Nov-Dec;13(6):460-7
pubmed: 11203670
J Oral Rehabil. 2000 Jul;27(7):602-7
pubmed: 10931253
Int J Prosthodont. 2004 May-Jun;17(3):281-4
pubmed: 15237872
J Adhes Dent. 2011 Oct;13(5):407-10
pubmed: 21935512
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2019 Jan;31(1):40-50
pubmed: 30302909
J Dent Res. 2016 Nov;95(12):1350-1357
pubmed: 27466396
Quintessence Int. 2000 Oct;31(9):613-9
pubmed: 11203985
J Prosthet Dent. 1985 Sep;54(3):361-5
pubmed: 3906091
J Dent. 2016 Apr;47:1-7
pubmed: 26875611
J Dent. 2016 Feb;45:59-66
pubmed: 26756882
J Prosthodont Res. 2019 Jul;63(3):374-382
pubmed: 30878520
J Prosthodont. 2018 Mar;27(3):266-275
pubmed: 29522288
Int J Prosthodont. 2005 Sep-Oct;18(5):371-6
pubmed: 16220800
Br Dent J. 2013 Jul;215(2):E3
pubmed: 23887555
J Dent. 1998 Jul-Aug;26(5-6):397-402
pubmed: 9699428
Br Dent J. 2011 Aug 12;211(3):113-8
pubmed: 21836574
Br Dent J. 2017 Jun 9;222(11):849-858
pubmed: 28703151
J Adhes Dent. 2013 Feb;15(1):73-84
pubmed: 23534027
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018 Oct;29 Suppl 16:215-223
pubmed: 30328196
J Prosthet Dent. 2014 Feb;111(2):136-41
pubmed: 24189114
J Am Dent Assoc. 2008 Feb;139(2):191-4
pubmed: 18245688
Dent Update. 2008 Oct;35(8):521-2, 524-6
pubmed: 19055088
Jpn Dent Sci Rev. 2021 Nov;57:33-38
pubmed: 33737993
Aust Dent J. 1993 Apr;38(2):85-96
pubmed: 8494517
Quintessence Int. 2005 Feb;36(2):141-7
pubmed: 15732550
J Oral Rehabil. 2005 Oct;32(10):759-65
pubmed: 16159355
Clin Oral Investig. 2016 Jul;20(6):1329-36
pubmed: 26438343
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008 Feb;19(2):131-41
pubmed: 18070120
J Oral Rehabil. 1999 Apr;26(4):302-20
pubmed: 10232858
Aust Dent J. 2018 Apr 16;:
pubmed: 29660169
J Prosthet Dent. 1986 Sep;56(3):297-300
pubmed: 3528460
Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2008 Mar;16(1):2-9
pubmed: 18468318
J Oral Rehabil. 1990 Mar;17(2):179-86
pubmed: 2187972
Eur J Dent. 2021 Oct;15(4):788-797
pubmed: 34428850
J Dent. 2020 Dec;103:103519
pubmed: 33152408