Affiliation:
1. Private Dental Practice, Bursa , Turkey
2. Department of Prosthodontics , Dicle University Faculty of Dentistry , Diyarbakir , Turkey
Abstract
Summary
Background/Aim: The purpose of this in-vitro study was to compare the resin-bonded fixed partial dentures (RBFPD) fabricated using two different structural designs and two different antibacterial adhesive lutting protocols in regard to their resistance to debonding.
Material and Methods: Forty samples for a model with single missing molar were divided into 4 groups (M1, M2, C1, C2) (n=10). M1 and M2 were prepared in accordance with modified inlay slot-cavity retained RBFPD design; C1 and C2 were prepared according to conventional inlay slot-cavity retained RBFPD design. M1 and C1 cavities were treated with 2% chlorhexidine-based (CHX) cavity disinfectant and 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (MDP) containing adhesive system; M2 and C2 cavities were treated with MDP and 12-methacryloyloxydodecylpyridinium bromide (MDPB) containing adhesive system featuring antibacterial cavity cleansing effect. The RBFPDs were made of base-metal alloy and their fit surfaces sandblasted with aluminium oxide (Al2O3). Adhesive resin cement was used for cementation, and the RBFPD retainers were interlocked into their corresponding inlay cavities using composite resin. After 1 week being immersed in aqueous environment, the RBFPDs were subjected to tensile loading at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min until failure. One way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests were used for statistical evaluation (α=0.05). Mode of failure and tooth damage was also noted.
Results: Mean tensile bond strength values were 356 N for M1, 305 N for M2, 467 N for C1, and 455 N for C2. Tensile strength values of C1 and C2 were significantly higher than those of M1 and M2 (p<0.05). The mode of failure was mostly adhesive in character at the metal-cement interface in all groups. Tooth fracture was observed nearly in all specimens. No significant difference was detected between the antibacterial adhesive lutting protocols (p>0.05).
Conclusions: The RBFPDs with the conventional design were found to be more retentive than those with the modified design. Using an adhesive system featuring antibacterial properties with no need of separate antibacterial agent application during bonding may be favourable.
Reference36 articles.
1. 1. Watanabe F, Powers JM, Lorey RE. In vitro bonding of prosthodontic adhesives to dental alloys. J Dent Res, 1988;67:479-483.10.1177/00220345880670020901
2. 2. Imbery TA, Eshelman EG. Resin-bonded fixed partial dentures: A review of three decades of progress. J Am Dent Assoc, 1996;127:1751-1760.10.14219/jada.archive.1996.0136
3. 3. El-Mowafy O, Rubo MHM. Resin bonded fixed partial dentures: A literature review with presentation of a novel approach. Int J Prosthodont, 2000;13:460-467.
4. 4. Yamashita A, Yamami T. Procedures for applying adhesive resin (MMA-TBB) to crown and bridge restorations. Part I. The influence of dental non-precious alloys and the treatment of inner surface of metal to adhesion. J Jpn Prosthet Dent, 1982;26:584-591.
5. 5. Matsumura H, Tanoue N, Atsuta M. Adhesive bonding of stainless steels and their component metals. J Oral Rehabil, 2000;27:1054-1059.10.1046/j.1365-2842.2000.00619.x
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献