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-...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |