The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 24 , ISSUE 11 ( November, 2023 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparison of Fracture Resistance between Implant-supported Bis-acryl Interim 3-unit FDPs Using Six Different Strengthening Mechanisms: An In Vitro Study

Ali Mohammad Hujeiry, Ghada Ayash

Keywords : Bis-acryl, Fracture resistance, Interim, Kevlar, Retraction cord

Citation Information : Hujeiry AM, Ayash G. Comparison of Fracture Resistance between Implant-supported Bis-acryl Interim 3-unit FDPs Using Six Different Strengthening Mechanisms: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2023; 24 (11):840-846.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3587

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 11-01-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: To investigate six different strengthening mechanisms for three-unit implant-supported provisional restorations. Materials and methods: Six techniques of provisional fixed prostheses (PFP) reinforcement were investigated and were assigned to different groups (n = 10): group (ZP) zirconia powder, group (SK8) silk thread wrapped as a figure-of-8 pattern around middle third of abutment, group (RC8) size 00 retraction cord wrapped as a figure-of-8 pattern around middle third of abutment, group (RF8) Resin impregnated glass fiber ribbon wrapped as a figure-of-8 pattern around abutment, group (KV8) Kevlar 29 cord wrapped as a figure-of-8 pattern around middle third of abutment, group (KV) Kevlar 29 strands incorporated in resin mix. Compared against unenforced bis-acryl as control group (CL). Seventy Metal Dies were 3D printed having Soft Tissue Gingiva Mask. Using a custom-made silicone Index, 70 PFP were fabricated (10 of each group) and were cemented to their corresponding metal dies using zinc polycarboxylate cement. All specimens were thermal cycled for 1000 cycles using order of 20 seconds at 55°C and 20 seconds at 5°C with 10 seconds transport. Fracture resistance test was done using universal testing machine. All specimens were loaded to failure. Data were collected, tabulated and statistically analyzed. Results: Kolmogorov–Smirnov normality test showed no significant difference between data in each group. So, data are normally distributed in each group. Descriptive statistics showed higher mean values of CL group (780.8 ± 164) followed by RF8 group (614.2 ± 158.2), followed by RC8 group (550.2 ± 339.2), followed by KV8 group (442.1 ± 198.4), followed by KV group (403.9 ± 306), followed by SK8 group (175.9 ± 90.8), and finally ZP group (136.5 ± 135.7). One-way ANOVA revealed significant difference between the tested groups (p = 0.036). Conclusion: Bis-acryl provisional restorations had better mean fracture resistance values than all other strengthening mechanisms. Bis-acryl provisional restorations did not gain more strength by any of the added materials. One-way ANOVA revealed significant difference between all tested groups. Clinical significance: Provisional restorations over implant should be strong enough to serve for the long period of bone and tissue healing. Current materials alone cannot survive for long. It serves as temporization between steps of fixed restorations construction.

HTML PDF Share
  1. Rosenstiel SF Land MF Fujimoto J. Contemporary Fixed Prosthodontics. Fifth ed. St. Louis Missouri: Elsevier; 2016.
  2. Hamza TA, Rosenstiel SF, El-Hosary MM, et al. Fracture resistance of fiber-reinforced PMMA interim fixed partial dentures. J Prosthodont 2006;15(4):223–228. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2006.00110.x.
  3. Christensen GJ. The fastest and best provisional restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 2003;134(5):637–639. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2003.0233.
  4. Haselton DR, Diaz-Arnold AM, Vargas MA. Flexural strength of provisional crown and fixed partial denture resins. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87(2):225–228. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2002.121406.
  5. Nejatidanesh F, Momeni G, Savabi O. Flexural strength of interim resin materials for fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthodont 2009;18(6):507–511. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2009.00473.x.
  6. Gegauff AG, Wilkerson JJ. Fracture toughness testing of visible light- and chemical-initiated provisional restoration resins [published correction appears in Int J Prosthodont 1995;8(3):284]. Int J Prosthodont 1995;8(1):62–68. PMID: 7710627.
  7. Goldman M. Fracture properties of composite and glass ionomer dental restorative materials. J Biomed Mater Res 1985;19(7):771–783. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.820190705.
  8. Gegauff AG, Pryor HG. Fracture toughness of provisional resins for fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 1987;58(1):23–29. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(87)80137-3.
  9. Geerts GA, Overturf JH, Oberholzer TG. The effect of different reinforcements on the fracture toughness of materials for interim restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2008;99(6):461–467. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60108-0.
  10. Rayyan MM, Aboushelib M, Sayed NM, et al. Comparison of interim restorations fabricated by CAD/CAM with those fabricated manually. J Prosthet Dent 2015;114(3):414–419. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.03.007.
  11. Vallittu PK. Comparison of the in vitro fatigue resistance of an acrylic resin removable partial denture reinforced with continuous glass fibers or metal wires. J Prosthodont 1996;5(2):115–121. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849x.1996.tb00285.x.
  12. Nohrström TJ, Vallittu PK, Yli-Urpo A. The effect of placement and quantity of glass fibers on the fracture resistance of interim fixed partial dentures. Int J Prosthodont 2000;13(1):72–78. PMID: 11203613.
  13. Cho K, Wang G, Raju R, et al. Selective Atomic-level etching on short S-glass fibres to control interfacial properties for restorative dental composites. Sci Rep 2019;9(1):3851. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-40524-7.
  14. Siddiq A, Rayyan M, Segaan L, et al. Failure mode of 2 fiber posts bonded using 3 different adhesive systems. Egypt Dent J 2018;64(2):1639–1645. DOI: 10.21608/EDJ.2018.78399.
  15. Solnit GS. The effect of methyl methacrylate reinforcement with silane-treated and untreated glass fibers. J Prosthet Dent 1991;66(3):310–314. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(91)90255-u.
  16. Hamza TA, Rosenstiel SF, Elhosary MM, et al. The effect of fiber reinforcement on the fracture toughness and flexural strength of provisional restorative resins. J Prosthet Dent 2004;91(3):258–264. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.01.005.
  17. Vallittu PK. Glass fiber reinforcement in repaired acrylic resin removable dentures: preliminary results of a clinical study. Quintessence Int 1997;28(1):39–44. PMID: 10332353.
  18. Vallittu PK. The effect of glass fiber reinforcement on the fracture resistance of a provisional fixed partial denture. J Prosthet Dent 1998;79(2):125–130. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(98)70204-5.
  19. Pfeiffer P, Grube L. In vitro resistance of reinforced interim fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89(2):170–174. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2003.29.
  20. Kim SH, Watts DC. Effect of glass-fiber reinforcement and water storage on fracture toughness (KIC) of polymer-based provisional crown and FPD materials. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17(3):318–322. PMID: 15237879.
  21. Hammond BD, Hodd JA. Fiber-reinforced interim fixed dental prostheses: A clinical protocol. J Prosthet Dent 2016;116(4):496–500. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.04.002.
  22. Wikipedia contributors. Kevlar. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. September 6, 2023, 22:20 UTC. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevlar&oldid=1174193308. Accessed October 18, 2023.
  23. Saha S, Kraay MJ. Bending properties of wire-reinforced bone cement for applications in spinal fixation. J Biomed Mater Res 1979;13(3): 443–457. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.820130309.
  24. Saha S, Pal S. Improvement of mechanical properties of acrylic bone cement by fiber reinforcement. J Biomech 1984;17(7):467–478. DOI: 10.1016/0021-9290(84)90015-0.
  25. Hess D, Belser U. Ponts provisoires en extension renforcés au Kevlar [Provisional extension bridges reinforced with Kevlar]. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 1987;97(4):456–463. PMID: 3296169.
  26. Panyayong W, Oshida Y, Andres CJ, et al. Reinforcement of acrylic resins for provisional fixed restorations. Part III: Effects of addition of titania and zirconia mixtures on some mechanical and physical properties. Biomed Mater Eng 2002;12(4):353–366. PMID: 12652030.
  27. Zafar N, Ghani F. Common post-fitting complications in tooth-supported fixed-fixed design metal–ceramic fixed dental prostheses. Pak J Med Sci 2014;30(3):619–625. DOI: 10.12669/pjms. 303.5599.
  28. Sharif M, Aslam S, Khan I, et al. Patterns of retentive failures in dislodged single crowns: Retentive failures in crowns. Pakistan Armed Forces Medical Journal 2022;72(3):1090–1093. DOI: https://doi.org/10.51253/pafmj.v72i3.7730.
  29. Cheung GS, Lai SC, Ng RP. Fate of vital pulps beneath a metal-ceramic crown or a bridge retainer. Int Endod J 2005;38(8):521–530. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2005.00982.x.
  30. Alenezi A, Aloqayli S. Technical complications with tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) of different span lengths: An up to 15-year retrospective study. BMC Oral Health 2023;23(1):393. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-023-03121-9.
  31. Rayyan MM, Makarem HA. A modified technique for preventing excess cement around implant supported restoration margins. J Prosthet Dent 2016;116(6):840–842. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016. 04.007.
  32. Rayyan M, Aboushelib M, Bdeir M. Effect of 5 different cad cam core designs on fracture resistance and color of zirconia bilayered crowns: An in-vitro study. Egypt Dent J 2019;65(2):1825–1831. DOI: 10.21608/EDJ.2019.73007.
  33. Rayyan MM, Hussien AN, Naguib H, et al. Fracture resistance of computer aided endocrowns versus conventional core-supported computer aided full crowns. Int. Arab J Dent 2019;10(2):55–59. DOI: 10.12816/0055609.
  34. Hussien AN, Rayyan MM, Sayed NM, et al. Effect of screw-access channels on the fracture resistance of 3 types of ceramic implant-supported crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2016;116(2):214–220. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.12.016.
  35. Reslan MR, Sayed M, Rayyan MM, et al. Effect of cement type on fracture resistance and mode of failure of monolith vs bilayered zirconia single crowns. J Contemp Dent Pract 2023;24(8):576–581. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3546.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.