Clinical oral investigations · 2022
Biomechanical behavior of posterior metal-free cantilever fixed dental prostheses: effect of material and retainer design.
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.
Kasem Ammar T, Elsherbiny Abdallah Ahmed, Abo-Madina Manal, Tribst João Paulo M, Al-Zordk Walid
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To study the fracture resistance and stress distribution pattern of translucent zirconia and fiber-reinforced composite cantilever resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses (RPFDPs) with two retainer designs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty human mandibular molars were divided into two groups according to the retainer design. The restorations included a premolar pontic and 2 retainer designs: (D1) inlay ring retainer and (D2) lingual coverage retainer. Each main group was then divided according to the material used (n = 10): zirconia (Z) or fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) (F). Restorations were cemented using dual polymerizing adhesive luting resin. All specimens were thermo-cycled (5-55 °C for 10,000 cycles), then subjected to dynamic loading (50 N, 240,000, and 1.6 Hz) and fracture resistance test. The finite element analysis includes the two models of retainer designs used in the in vitro test. Modified von Mises stress values on enamel, dentin, luting resin, and restorations were examined when the restorations failed.
RESULTS: A significantly higher failure load was recorded for zirconia groups (505.00 ± 61.50 and 548.00 ± 75.63 N for D1Z and D2Z, respectively) than for FRC groups (345.00 ± 42.33 and 375.10 ± 53.62 N for D1F and D2F, respectively) (P = 0.001). With regard to failure mode, D2 showed a more favorable failure pattern than D1. Model D2 resulted in lower stresses in tooth structure than model D1, and zirconia transmitted more stresses to the tooth structure than FRC.
CONCLUSIONS: The lingual coverage retainer (D2) enhanced the biomechanical performance of the restoration/tooth complex. Considering the failure mode and tooth stress, FRC is a promising treatment option when constructing a cantilever RPFDP.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Dentists should be aware of the biomechanical behavior during the selection of the material and for the replacement of a single missing mandibular premolar tooth with minimally invasive RBFDP.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty human mandibular molars were divided into two groups according to the retainer design. The restorations included a premolar pontic and 2 retainer designs: (D1) inlay ring retainer and (D2) lingual coverage retainer. Each main group was then divided according to the material used (n = 10): zirconia (Z) or fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) (F). Restorations were cemented using dual polymerizing adhesive luting resin. All specimens were thermo-cycled (5-55 °C for 10,000 cycles), then subjected to dynamic loading (50 N, 240,000, and 1.6 Hz) and fracture resistance test. The finite element analysis includes the two models of retainer designs used in the in vitro test. Modified von Mises stress values on enamel, dentin, luting resin, and restorations were examined when the restorations failed.
RESULTS: A significantly higher failure load was recorded for zirconia groups (505.00 ± 61.50 and 548.00 ± 75.63 N for D1Z and D2Z, respectively) than for FRC groups (345.00 ± 42.33 and 375.10 ± 53.62 N for D1F and D2F, respectively) (P = 0.001). With regard to failure mode, D2 showed a more favorable failure pattern than D1. Model D2 resulted in lower stresses in tooth structure than model D1, and zirconia transmitted more stresses to the tooth structure than FRC.
CONCLUSIONS: The lingual coverage retainer (D2) enhanced the biomechanical performance of the restoration/tooth complex. Considering the failure mode and tooth stress, FRC is a promising treatment option when constructing a cantilever RPFDP.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Dentists should be aware of the biomechanical behavior during the selection of the material and for the replacement of a single missing mandibular premolar tooth with minimally invasive RBFDP.