ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Conventional resin-bonded fixed partial dentures (RBFPDs) are usually made with a two-retainer design. Unlike conventional RBFPDs, cantilever resin-bonded fixed partial dentures (Cantilever RBFPDs) are, for their part, made with a single-retainer design. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of tooth surface preparation on the bond strength of zirconia cantilever single-retainer RBFPDs. The objective is to evaluate the shear bond strength of these single-retainer RBFPDs bonded on 3 different amount of tooth surface preparation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty extracted bovine incisors were categorized to 3 groups (n=10), with different amounts of tooth surface preparations. Teeth were restored with single-retainer RBFPDs with different retainer surfaces: large retainer of 32 mm²; medium retainer of 22 mm²; no retainer and only a proximal connecting box of 12 mm². All RBFPDs were made of zirconia and were bonded using an adhesive system without adhesive capacity. Shear forces were applied to these restorations until debonding. RESULTS: Mean shear bond strength values for the groups I, II, and II were 2.39±0.53 MPa, 3.13±0.69 MPa, and 5.40±0.96 MPa, respectively. Statistical analyses were performed using a one-way ANOVA test with Bonferroni post-hoc test, at a significance level of 0.001. Failure modes were observed and showed a 100% adhesive fracture. CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that the preparation of large tooth surface preparation might be irrelevant. For zirconia single-retainer RBFPD, only the preparation of a proximal connecting box seems to be a reliable and minimally invasive approach. The differences are statistically significant.
Subject(s)
Adhesives , Denture, Partial, Fixed , Denture, Partial, Fixed, Resin-Bonded , Incisor , ToothABSTRACT
The author names were mistakenly given as Cetik Sibel. It should be corrected as Sibel Cetik. The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics apologizes to the readers for this error.
ABSTRACT
The author names were mistakenly given as Cetik Sibel. It should be corrected as Sibel Cetik. The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics apologizes to the readers for this error.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the precision of optical impression (Trios, 3Shape) versus that of conventional impression (Imprint IV, 3M-ESPE) with three different margins (shoulder, chamfer, and knife-edge) on Frasaco teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sample comprised of 60 zirconia half-crowns, divided into six groups according to the type of impression and margin. Scanning electron microscopy enabled us to analyze the gap between the zirconia crowns and the Frasaco teeth, using ImageJ software, based on eight reproducible and standardized measuring points. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was found between conventional impressions and optical impressions, except for two of the eight points. A statistically significant difference was observed between the three margin types; the chamfer and knife-edge finishing lines appeared to offer better adaptation results than the shoulder margin. CONCLUSION: Zirconia crowns created from optical impression and those created from conventional impression present similar adaptation. While offering identical results, the former have many advantages. In view of our findings, we believe the chamfer margin should be favored.
Subject(s)
Crowns , In Vitro Techniques , Microscopy, Electron, Scanning , Shoulder , ToothABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The aim of this work is to evaluate different types of materials used for making implant abutments, by means of an in vitro study and a review of the literature, in order to identify the indications for a better choice of an implant-supported restoration in the anterior section. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 5 implant abutments were tested in a random order in the superior anterior maxilla of pig gingiva (n = 8): titanium dioxide (Nobel Biocare); zirconium dioxide, Standard BO shade (Nobel Biocare, Kloten, Switzerland); zirconium dioxide, Light BI shade (Nobel Biocare); zirconium dioxide, Intense A 3.5 shade (Nobel Biocare); and aluminium oxide. Each abutment was tested for 2 mm and 3 mm thickness. To determine color variation, VITA Easyshade Advance spectrophotometer (Vita Zahnfabrik, Bad Sackingen, Germany) was used. RESULTS: Results showed that the color variation induced by the abutment would be affected by the abutment material and gingival thickness, when the gingival thickness is 2 mm. All materials except zirconium dioxide (Standard shade) caused a visible change of color. Then, as the thickness of the gingiva increased to 3 mm, the color variation was attenuated in a significant manner and became invisible for all types of abutments, except those made of aluminium oxide. CONCLUSION: Zirconium dioxide is the material causing the lowest color variation at 2 mm and at 3 mm, whereas aluminium oxide causes the highest color variation no matter the thickness.