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-...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2022-08-01
|
| Series: | Materials |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/15/16/5744 |
| _version_ | 1797409092801658880 |
|---|---|
| author | Shweta Narwani Naveen S. Yadav Puja Hazari Vrinda Saxena Abdulrahman H. Alzahrani Ahmed Alamoudi Bassam Zidane Nasreen Hassan Mohammed Albar Ali Robaian Sushil Kishnani Kirti Somkuwar Shilpa Bhandi Kumar Chandan Srivastava Deepti Shrivastava Shankargouda Patil |
| author_facet | Shweta Narwani Naveen S. Yadav Puja Hazari Vrinda Saxena Abdulrahman H. Alzahrani Ahmed Alamoudi Bassam Zidane Nasreen Hassan Mohammed Albar Ali Robaian Sushil Kishnani Kirti Somkuwar Shilpa Bhandi Kumar Chandan Srivastava Deepti Shrivastava Shankargouda Patil |
| author_sort | Shweta Narwani |
| collection | DOAJ |
| 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-09T04:09:22Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-13bdffcc4a3540d1a09586ea4a7d0f21 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1996-1944 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-09T04:09:22Z |
| publishDate | 2022-08-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Materials |
| spelling | doaj.art-13bdffcc4a3540d1a09586ea4a7d0f212023-12-03T14:02:29ZengMDPI AGMaterials1996-19442022-08-011516574410.3390/ma15165744Comparison of Tensile Bond Strength of Fixed-Fixed Versus Cantilever Single- and Double-Abutted Resin-Bonded Bridges Dental ProsthesisShweta Narwani0Naveen S. Yadav1Puja Hazari2Vrinda Saxena3Abdulrahman H. Alzahrani4Ahmed Alamoudi5Bassam Zidane6Nasreen Hassan Mohammed Albar7Ali Robaian8Sushil Kishnani9Kirti Somkuwar10Shilpa Bhandi11Kumar Chandan Srivastava12Deepti Shrivastava13Shankargouda Patil14Department of Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge and Implantology, Peoples Dental Academy, Peoples University, Bhopal 462037, IndiaDepartment of Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge and Implantology, Peoples Dental Academy, Peoples University, Bhopal 462037, IndiaDepartment of Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge and Implantology, Peoples Dental Academy, Peoples University, Bhopal 462037, IndiaDepartment of Public Health Dentistry, Government Dental College, Indore 452001, IndiaDepartment of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Taif University, Taif 21944, Saudi ArabiaDepartment of Oral Biology, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 80200, Saudi ArabiaDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 22254, Saudi ArabiaDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan 45142, Saudi ArabiaDepartment of Conservative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University, Al-Kharj 16278, Saudi ArabiaDepartment of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics, Peoples College of Dental Sciences, Peoples University, Bhopal 462037, IndiaDepartment of Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge and Implantology, Peoples Dental Academy, Peoples University, Bhopal 462037, IndiaDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan 45142, Saudi ArabiaDepartment of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery & Diagnostic Sciences, College of Dentistry, Jouf University, Sakaka 72388, Saudi ArabiaDepartment of Preventive Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Jouf University, Sakaka 72388, Saudi ArabiaDepartment of Maxillofacial Surgery and Diagnostic Sciences, Division of Oral Pathology, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan 45142, Saudi ArabiaResin-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.https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/15/16/5744propertiesbond strengthdebondingdental prosthesisresin-bondedfixed prosthesis |
| spellingShingle | Shweta Narwani Naveen S. Yadav Puja Hazari Vrinda Saxena Abdulrahman H. Alzahrani Ahmed Alamoudi Bassam Zidane Nasreen Hassan Mohammed Albar Ali Robaian Sushil Kishnani Kirti Somkuwar Shilpa Bhandi Kumar Chandan Srivastava Deepti Shrivastava Shankargouda Patil Comparison of Tensile Bond Strength of Fixed-Fixed Versus Cantilever Single- and Double-Abutted Resin-Bonded Bridges Dental Prosthesis Materials properties bond strength debonding dental prosthesis resin-bonded fixed 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 | properties bond strength debonding dental prosthesis resin-bonded fixed prosthesis |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/15/16/5744 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT shwetanarwani comparisonoftensilebondstrengthoffixedfixedversuscantileversingleanddoubleabuttedresinbondedbridgesdentalprosthesis AT naveensyadav comparisonoftensilebondstrengthoffixedfixedversuscantileversingleanddoubleabuttedresinbondedbridgesdentalprosthesis AT pujahazari comparisonoftensilebondstrengthoffixedfixedversuscantileversingleanddoubleabuttedresinbondedbridgesdentalprosthesis AT vrindasaxena comparisonoftensilebondstrengthoffixedfixedversuscantileversingleanddoubleabuttedresinbondedbridgesdentalprosthesis AT abdulrahmanhalzahrani comparisonoftensilebondstrengthoffixedfixedversuscantileversingleanddoubleabuttedresinbondedbridgesdentalprosthesis AT ahmedalamoudi comparisonoftensilebondstrengthoffixedfixedversuscantileversingleanddoubleabuttedresinbondedbridgesdentalprosthesis AT bassamzidane comparisonoftensilebondstrengthoffixedfixedversuscantileversingleanddoubleabuttedresinbondedbridgesdentalprosthesis AT nasreenhassanmohammedalbar comparisonoftensilebondstrengthoffixedfixedversuscantileversingleanddoubleabuttedresinbondedbridgesdentalprosthesis AT alirobaian comparisonoftensilebondstrengthoffixedfixedversuscantileversingleanddoubleabuttedresinbondedbridgesdentalprosthesis AT sushilkishnani comparisonoftensilebondstrengthoffixedfixedversuscantileversingleanddoubleabuttedresinbondedbridgesdentalprosthesis AT kirtisomkuwar comparisonoftensilebondstrengthoffixedfixedversuscantileversingleanddoubleabuttedresinbondedbridgesdentalprosthesis AT shilpabhandi comparisonoftensilebondstrengthoffixedfixedversuscantileversingleanddoubleabuttedresinbondedbridgesdentalprosthesis AT kumarchandansrivastava comparisonoftensilebondstrengthoffixedfixedversuscantileversingleanddoubleabuttedresinbondedbridgesdentalprosthesis AT deeptishrivastava comparisonoftensilebondstrengthoffixedfixedversuscantileversingleanddoubleabuttedresinbondedbridgesdentalprosthesis AT shankargoudapatil comparisonoftensilebondstrengthoffixedfixedversuscantileversingleanddoubleabuttedresinbondedbridgesdentalprosthesis |