Retention of a posterior resin-bonded fixed partial denture with a modified design: an in vitro study.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to test in vitro the resistance of a modified resin-bonded fixed partial denture (RBFPD) to detachment using a laboratory setup simulating load fatigue of mastication forces. The effect of varying the cement type was also investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Extracted teeth were used to prepare specimens each consisting of a premolar and a molar with a space equivalent to a molar in between. Five test groups were prepared (n = 7). Specimens in group 1 were prepared to receive conventional RBFPDs with proximal grooves, occlusal rests, and lingual wings. Specimens in groups 2 and 3 were prepared to receive modified RBFPDs with retentive-slot restorations. Specimens in group 4 were prepared to receive RBFPDs with retentive-slot restorations only, whereas specimens in group 5 were prepared similarly to the ones in groups 2 and 3 but with inlay preparations instead of the retentive slots. Castings were made and their fit surfaces microetched. In groups 1, 2, 4, and 5 castings were cemented with Cement-It, whereas castings of group 3 were cemented with Panavia 21. Slot cavities of groups 2, 3, and 4 were restored with a resin composite. Specimens were subjected to compressive load cycling for 230,000 cycles at 4 Hz under water. Castings were then separated from the abutments under tensile loading. RESULTS: Mean separation forces were: group 1 = 361 N, group 2 = 525 N, group 3 = 562 N, group 4 = 449 N, and group 5 = 417 N. Groups 2 and 3 had significantly higher mean separation forces than groups 1 and 5. Separation of castings in groups 2 and 3 was associated with a higher frequency of cohesive fracture of the abutments than in group 1. Adhesive failure was uncommon among specimens of groups 2, 3, and 4. CONCLUSION: The modified RBFPDs of groups 2 and 3 had better potential for retention. Increased resistance to dislodgment of the modified RBFPDs was not directly related to the surface area of the castings, nor was it related to the type of resin cement, but rather to mechanical interlocking of the castings with the retentive-slot resin composite restorations.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».