Cargando…

Comparison of Tensile Bond Strength of Fixed-Fixed Versus Cantilever Single- and Double-Abutted Resin-Bonded Bridges Dental Prosthesis

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-...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Narwani, Shweta, Yadav, Naveen S., Hazari, Puja, Saxena, Vrinda, Alzahrani, Abdulrahman H., Alamoudi, Ahmed, Zidane, Bassam, Albar, Nasreen Hassan Mohammed, Robaian, Ali, Kishnani, Sushil, Somkuwar, Kirti, Bhandi, Shilpa, Srivastava, Kumar Chandan, Shrivastava, Deepti, Patil, Shankargouda
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9416637/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36013880
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma15165744
_version_ 1784776527221620736
author Narwani, Shweta
Yadav, Naveen S.
Hazari, Puja
Saxena, Vrinda
Alzahrani, Abdulrahman H.
Alamoudi, Ahmed
Zidane, Bassam
Albar, Nasreen Hassan Mohammed
Robaian, Ali
Kishnani, Sushil
Somkuwar, Kirti
Bhandi, Shilpa
Srivastava, Kumar Chandan
Shrivastava, Deepti
Patil, Shankargouda
author_facet Narwani, Shweta
Yadav, Naveen S.
Hazari, Puja
Saxena, Vrinda
Alzahrani, Abdulrahman H.
Alamoudi, Ahmed
Zidane, Bassam
Albar, Nasreen Hassan Mohammed
Robaian, Ali
Kishnani, Sushil
Somkuwar, Kirti
Bhandi, Shilpa
Srivastava, Kumar Chandan
Shrivastava, Deepti
Patil, Shankargouda
author_sort Narwani, Shweta
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9416637
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94166372022-08-27 Comparison of Tensile Bond Strength of Fixed-Fixed Versus Cantilever Single- and Double-Abutted Resin-Bonded Bridges Dental Prosthesis Narwani, Shweta Yadav, Naveen S. Hazari, Puja Saxena, Vrinda Alzahrani, Abdulrahman H. Alamoudi, Ahmed Zidane, Bassam Albar, Nasreen Hassan Mohammed Robaian, Ali Kishnani, Sushil Somkuwar, Kirti Bhandi, Shilpa Srivastava, Kumar Chandan Shrivastava, Deepti Patil, Shankargouda Materials (Basel) Article 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. MDPI 2022-08-19 /pmc/articles/PMC9416637/ /pubmed/36013880 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma15165744 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Narwani, Shweta
Yadav, Naveen S.
Hazari, Puja
Saxena, Vrinda
Alzahrani, Abdulrahman H.
Alamoudi, Ahmed
Zidane, Bassam
Albar, Nasreen Hassan Mohammed
Robaian, Ali
Kishnani, Sushil
Somkuwar, Kirti
Bhandi, Shilpa
Srivastava, Kumar Chandan
Shrivastava, Deepti
Patil, Shankargouda
Comparison of Tensile Bond Strength of Fixed-Fixed Versus Cantilever Single- and Double-Abutted Resin-Bonded Bridges Dental Prosthesis
title Comparison of Tensile Bond Strength of Fixed-Fixed Versus Cantilever Single- and Double-Abutted Resin-Bonded Bridges Dental Prosthesis
title_full Comparison of Tensile Bond Strength of Fixed-Fixed Versus Cantilever Single- and Double-Abutted Resin-Bonded Bridges Dental Prosthesis
title_fullStr Comparison of Tensile Bond Strength of Fixed-Fixed Versus Cantilever Single- and Double-Abutted Resin-Bonded Bridges Dental Prosthesis
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Tensile Bond Strength of Fixed-Fixed Versus Cantilever Single- and Double-Abutted Resin-Bonded Bridges Dental Prosthesis
title_short Comparison of Tensile Bond Strength of Fixed-Fixed Versus Cantilever Single- and Double-Abutted Resin-Bonded Bridges Dental Prosthesis
title_sort comparison of tensile bond strength of fixed-fixed versus cantilever single- and double-abutted resin-bonded bridges dental prosthesis
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9416637/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36013880
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma15165744
work_keys_str_mv AT narwanishweta comparisonoftensilebondstrengthoffixedfixedversuscantileversingleanddoubleabuttedresinbondedbridgesdentalprosthesis
AT yadavnaveens comparisonoftensilebondstrengthoffixedfixedversuscantileversingleanddoubleabuttedresinbondedbridgesdentalprosthesis
AT hazaripuja comparisonoftensilebondstrengthoffixedfixedversuscantileversingleanddoubleabuttedresinbondedbridgesdentalprosthesis
AT saxenavrinda comparisonoftensilebondstrengthoffixedfixedversuscantileversingleanddoubleabuttedresinbondedbridgesdentalprosthesis
AT alzahraniabdulrahmanh comparisonoftensilebondstrengthoffixedfixedversuscantileversingleanddoubleabuttedresinbondedbridgesdentalprosthesis
AT alamoudiahmed comparisonoftensilebondstrengthoffixedfixedversuscantileversingleanddoubleabuttedresinbondedbridgesdentalprosthesis
AT zidanebassam comparisonoftensilebondstrengthoffixedfixedversuscantileversingleanddoubleabuttedresinbondedbridgesdentalprosthesis
AT albarnasreenhassanmohammed comparisonoftensilebondstrengthoffixedfixedversuscantileversingleanddoubleabuttedresinbondedbridgesdentalprosthesis
AT robaianali comparisonoftensilebondstrengthoffixedfixedversuscantileversingleanddoubleabuttedresinbondedbridgesdentalprosthesis
AT kishnanisushil comparisonoftensilebondstrengthoffixedfixedversuscantileversingleanddoubleabuttedresinbondedbridgesdentalprosthesis
AT somkuwarkirti comparisonoftensilebondstrengthoffixedfixedversuscantileversingleanddoubleabuttedresinbondedbridgesdentalprosthesis
AT bhandishilpa comparisonoftensilebondstrengthoffixedfixedversuscantileversingleanddoubleabuttedresinbondedbridgesdentalprosthesis
AT srivastavakumarchandan comparisonoftensilebondstrengthoffixedfixedversuscantileversingleanddoubleabuttedresinbondedbridgesdentalprosthesis
AT shrivastavadeepti comparisonoftensilebondstrengthoffixedfixedversuscantileversingleanddoubleabuttedresinbondedbridgesdentalprosthesis
AT patilshankargouda comparisonoftensilebondstrengthoffixedfixedversuscantileversingleanddoubleabuttedresinbondedbridgesdentalprosthesis