1. 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
- Author
-
Hiroyuki Miura, Kosuke Nozaki, Tasuku Inagaki, Ayana Uraba, Satoshi Omori, and Reina Nemoto
- Subjects
Dental Stress Analysis ,Cantilever ,Materials science ,Finite Element Analysis ,0206 medical engineering ,Dental Cements ,Dentistry ,Dental Abutments ,02 engineering and technology ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Shear stress ,Humans ,Dentistry (miscellaneous) ,Maxillary central incisor ,Cubic zirconia ,Dental Restoration, Permanent ,business.industry ,Stress–strain curve ,Dental Bonding ,030206 dentistry ,Tooth Preparation, Prosthodontic ,020601 biomedical engineering ,Finite element method ,Biomechanical Phenomena ,Dental Prosthesis Design ,Printing, Three-Dimensional ,Zirconium ,Oral Surgery ,Shear Strength ,business ,Abutment (dentistry) ,Adhesive cement - 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.
- Published
- 2018
- Full Text
- View/download PDF