Original articleBiomechanical behavior of adhesive cement layer and periodontal tissues on the restored teeth with zirconia RBFDPs using three-kinds of framework design: 3D FEA study
Review articleOpen access
Ayana Uraba - No affiliation found
2018/04/01 Full-length article DOI: 10.1016/j.jpor.2017.10.001
Journal: Journal of Prosthodontic Research
AbstractPurposeTo investigate stress and strain concentrations on resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses (RBFDPs) frameworks of different design using finite element analysis.MethodsA 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 (200 N) 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.ResultsThe percentage voxels with shear stress >11 MPa 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.ConclusionsThe 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.
Request full text