Journal of prosthodontic research · 2025
Finite element analysis of stress distribution in cantilever resin-bonded zirconia fixed dental prosthesis and periodontal tissue with alveolar bone loss.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Oishi Yayoi, Nozaki Kosuke, Nemoto Reina, Yue Yin, Matsumura Mayuko, Saleh Omnia, Fueki Kenji
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the stress distribution in loaded zirconia resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses (RBFDPs) and periodontal tissue using finite element analysis, considering reduced alveolar bone levels and the number of retainers.
METHODS: A human skull was micro-CT scanned. Three framework designs were tested: a 2-unit RBFDP using the maxillary left central incisor (#21) as an abutment, another using a canine (#23), and a 3-unit RBFDP using both #21 and #23. The models were categorized based on the distance from the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) to the alveolar bone: M1 (1 mm), M2 (2 mm), M4 (4 mm), M6 (6 mm), and M8 (8 mm).
RESULTS: The shear stresses in the adhesive resin cement were lower in the 2-unit designs than in the 3-unit design in the M4-M8 models. The maximum principal stresses in the framework were smaller in the 2-unit design than in the 3-unit design for all models. The maximum principal strains in the periodontal ligament and trabecular bone in #21 were greater in the 2-units than in the 3-units in the M4-M8 models.
CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that cantilever RBFDPs may have a lower risk of framework fracture than 2-retainer RBFDPs, regardless of the reduction in alveolar bone levels. In cases with alveolar bone levels >4 mm below the CEJ, the cantilever RBFDPs had a smaller risk of debonding than the 2-retainer RBFDPs; however, it may increase the damage to periodontal tissue.
METHODS: A human skull was micro-CT scanned. Three framework designs were tested: a 2-unit RBFDP using the maxillary left central incisor (#21) as an abutment, another using a canine (#23), and a 3-unit RBFDP using both #21 and #23. The models were categorized based on the distance from the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) to the alveolar bone: M1 (1 mm), M2 (2 mm), M4 (4 mm), M6 (6 mm), and M8 (8 mm).
RESULTS: The shear stresses in the adhesive resin cement were lower in the 2-unit designs than in the 3-unit design in the M4-M8 models. The maximum principal stresses in the framework were smaller in the 2-unit design than in the 3-unit design for all models. The maximum principal strains in the periodontal ligament and trabecular bone in #21 were greater in the 2-units than in the 3-units in the M4-M8 models.
CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that cantilever RBFDPs may have a lower risk of framework fracture than 2-retainer RBFDPs, regardless of the reduction in alveolar bone levels. In cases with alveolar bone levels >4 mm below the CEJ, the cantilever RBFDPs had a smaller risk of debonding than the 2-retainer RBFDPs; however, it may increase the damage to periodontal tissue.