Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Influence of the preparation form on the retention of resin-bonded attachments for removable dental prostheses

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The study evaluated the influence of the number of retention grooves and the retainer wing thickness on the retention of resin-bonded attachments (RBAs).

Methods

Overall, 64 extracted human teeth were prepared, whereby the number of retention grooves (4, 2, 1, or no grooves) and the material thickness (0.7 or 0.5 mm) of the RBAs were varied. This resulted in eight groups with eight specimens each. A sample size of eight specimens per group was chosen because the chewing simulator used for dynamic loading can load eight specimens at a time. After the size of the adhesive area was determined, the abutment teeth were provided with RBAs and subjected to a dynamic loading with thermal cycling. Finally, the failure load was examined using a retention test.

Results

The mean failure loads ranged from 152 ± 50 N to 228 ± 32 N. There had been a significant interaction between the two main factors, i.e., number of retention grooves and material thickness. Neither the number of retention grooves nor the size of the adhesive area had a significant influence on the failure load.

Conclusions

Using a reduced number of retention grooves seems reasonable. However, clinical considerations suggest using two retention grooves to simplify the preparation and bonding procedures.

Clinical relevance

The retention of resin-bonded attachments is promising and supports the clinical application of this minimally invasive treatment modality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Zitzmann NU, Hagmann E, Weiger R (2007) What is the prevalence of various types of prosthetic dental restorations in Europe? Clin Oral Implants Res 18(3):20–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01435.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Zitzmann NU, Rohner U, Weiger R, Krastl G (2009) When to choose which retention element to use for removable dental prostheses. Int J Prosthodont 22(2):161–167

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Edelhoff D, Sorensen JA (2002) Tooth structure removal associated with various preparation designs for anterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 87(5):503–509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kern M (2005) Einflügelige Adhäsivbrücken und Adhäsivattachments – Innovation mit Bewährung. Zahnärztl Mitt 95(21):2878–2884

    Google Scholar 

  5. Marinello CP, Schärer P, Meyenberg K (1991) Resin-bonded etched castings with extracoronal attachments for removable partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 66(1):52–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Marinello CP, Schärer P (1987) Resin-bonded etched cast extracoronal attachments for removable partial dentures: clinical experiences. Int J Periodont Rest Dent 7(2):36–49

    Google Scholar 

  7. Behr M, Leibrock A, Stich W, Rammelsberg P, Rosentritt M, Handel G (1998) Adhesive-fixed partial dentures in anterior and posterior areas. Results of an on-going prospective study begun in 1985. Clin Oral Investig 2(1):31–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Rammelsberg P, Pospiech P, Gernet W (1993) Clinical factors affecting adhesive fixed partial dentures: a 6-year study. J Prosthet Dent 70(4):300–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Rammelsberg P, Behr M, Pospiech P, Gernet W, Handel G, Toutenburg H (1995) Extended indication for adhesive restorations as an esthetic and substance-sparing alternative to conventional bridges. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 50(3):224–227

    Google Scholar 

  10. Nair A, Regish KM, Patil NP, Prithyiraj DR (2012) Evaluation of the effects of different groove length and thickness of the retainers on the retention of maxillary anterior base metal resin bonded retainers—an in vitro study. J Clin Exp Dent 4(2):e91–e96. https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.50714

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Emara RZ, Byrne D, Hussey DL, Claffey N (2001) Effect of groove placement on the retention/resistance of resin-bonded retainers for maxillary and mandibular second molars. J Prosthet Dent 85(5):472–478. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2001.114512

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ibrahim AA, Byrne D, Hussey DL, Claffey N (1997) Bond strengths of maxillary anterior base metal resin-bonded retainers with different thicknesses. J Prosthet Dent 78(3):281–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kern M, Douglas WH, Fechtig T, Strub JR, DeLong R (1993) Fracture strength of all-porcelain, resin-bonded bridges after testing in an artificial oral environment. J Dent 21(2):117–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kern M (2017) RBFDPs: resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses: minimally invasive – esthetic – reliable, 1st edn. Quintessence Publishing, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kern M, Thompson VP (1993) Eine einfache Versuchsanordnung zur universellen Prüfung des Klebeverbundes im axialen Zugtest. Dtsch Zahnärztl 48(12):769–772

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kern M, Strub JR, Lü XY (1999) Wear of composite resin veneering materials in a dual-axis chewing simulator. J Oral Rehabil 26(5):372–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Krejci I, Lutz F (1990) In-vitro test results of the evaluation of dental restoration systems. Correlation with in-vivo results. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 100(12):1445–1449

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Talim ST, Gohil KS (1974) Management of coronal fractures of permanent posterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 31(2):172–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Schmitt J, Wichmann M, Eitner S, Hamel J, Holst S (2011) Five-year clinical follow-up of prefabricated precision attachments: a comparison of uni- and bilateral removable dental prostheses. Quintessence Int 42(5):413–418

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Passia N, Kern M (2015) Prosthetic treatment concepts for the reduced dentition in German dental schools. Int J Prosthodont 28(4):425–431. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.4268

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Jagodin S, Sasse M, Freitag-Wolf S, Kern M (2019) Influence of attachment design and material on the retention of resin-bonded attachments. Clin Oral Investig 23(3):1217–1223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2544-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. de Boever JA, McCall WD, Holden S, Ash MM (1978) Functional occlusal forces: an investigation by telemetry. J Prosthet Dent 40(3):326–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Arola DD, Gao S, Zhang H, Masri R (2017) The tooth: its structure and properties. Dent Clin N Am 61(4):651–668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2017.05.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Zheng Q, Xu H, Song F, Zhang L, Zhou X, Shao Y, Huang D (2013) Spatial distribution of the human enamel fracture toughness with aging. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 26:148–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2013.04.025

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Park S, Quinn JB, Romberg E, Arola D (2008) On the brittleness of enamel and selected dental materials. Dent Mater 24(11):1477–1485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2008.03.007

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Northeast SE, van Noort R, Shaglouf AS (1994) Tensile peel failure of resin-bonded Ni/Cr beams: an experimental and finite element study. J Dent 22(4):252–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the company Kuraray Noritake for the supply of the adhesive material free of charge. Furthermore, the authors wish to thank Mr. Reinhard Busch from the Department of Prosthodontics, Propaedeutics and Dental Materials of the University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, for his continuous impetus.

Funding

The work was supported by the Department of Prosthodontics, Propaedeutics and Dental Materials, School of Dentistry, Christian-Albrechts University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Prosthodontics, Propaedeutics and Dental Materials, School of Dentistry, Christian-Albrechts University of Kiel, Arnold-Heller-Str. 16, 24105 Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein, Germany

    Joram Brune, Sebastian Wille & Matthias Kern

Authors
  1. Joram Brune
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sebastian Wille
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Matthias Kern
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joram Brune.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brune, J., Wille, S. & Kern, M. Influence of the preparation form on the retention of resin-bonded attachments for removable dental prostheses. Clin Oral Invest 24, 3307–3313 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03208-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03208-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation