Retention of a posterior resin-bonded fixed partial denture with a modified design: an in vitro study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".