Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Apr;62(2):227-233.
doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2017.10.001. Epub 2017 Nov 8.

Biomechanical behavior of adhesive cement layer and periodontal tissues on the restored teeth with zirconia RBFDPs using three-kinds of framework design: 3D FEA study

Affiliations

Biomechanical behavior of adhesive cement layer and periodontal tissues on the restored teeth with zirconia RBFDPs using three-kinds of framework design: 3D FEA study

Ayana Uraba et al. J Prosthodont Res. 2018 Apr.

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate stress and strain concentrations on resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses (RBFDPs) frameworks of different design using finite element analysis.

Methods: A human dry skull was scanned and models were produced using three-dimensional printer. After abutment preparation, three frameworks, including a three-unit RBFDP, and two-unit cantilevered RBFDPs using #21 and #23 for the abutment tooth, were fabricated. Scanned data were subtracted to define boundary of each structure. Occlusal force (200N) was loaded at 45° to long axis of the pontic. The distributions of shear stress and principal strain in the RBFDP models were measured to evaluate the risk for framework-debonding from the abutment teeth and the impact on periodontal tissue.

Results: The percentage voxels with shear stress >11MPa in adhesive cement layer of three-unit RBFDP using #21 and #23 were 4.16% and 2.25%, respectively; in two-unit cantilevered RBFDPs, it was 19.25% using #21, and 23.4% using #23. The maximum principal strain on periodontal ligaments in two-unit cantilevered RBFDPs using #21 was the largest, and smallest in the three-unit RBFDP. The maximum principal strain in framework was largest in the two-unit cantilevered RBFDP using #23, and smallest in the three-unit RBFDP.

Conclusions: The risk for framework-debonding in three-unit RBFDPs was substantially lower than that in two-unit RBFDPs. In difficult cases with indication for three-unit RBFDPs, two-unit cantilever design using the canine would be more advantageous for preservation of periodontal tissue, while for risk of framework-debonding, the design using the central incisor would be more advantageous.

Keywords: Cantilevered design; Finite element analysis; Resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses; Zirconia.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

LinkOut - more resources