Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

In vitro investigation of the performance of different restorative materials under cast circumferential clasps for removable dental prostheses

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

Abstract

Objectives

The objective of this in vitro study was to investigate the behavior of different composite restorative materials under the load of cast circumferential clasps for removable dental prostheses (RDPs).

Methods

In 60 human molars, standardized mesial–occlusal–distal cavities were prepared. The cavities were restored with the following materials: Definite, Tetric Ceram, SureFil, Heliomolar RO, Ariston pHc, and Oralloy, and provided with a rest seat. The rest seats were subjected to 5,000 cycles of thermal cycling and 1,200,000 masticatory cycles in a mastication simulator via cobalt–chromium circumferential clasps cast to standardized frameworks in a laboratory model designed to simulate the biomechanics of a free-end denture base. Fracture analysis of the restorations was performed by light microscopy. Before and after loading, material wear was measured with a 3D-laser scanner, and an analysis of the marginal quality was performed in an SEM at ×200 applying the replica technique.

Results

No significant differences in the fracture behavior among the composite materials were found; the amalgam control group showed a significantly higher fracture resistance. Regarding the wear of the materials, the composites Definite and SureFil exhibited a behavior similar to that of amalgam. The other composites demonstrated higher wear rates. The initial marginal quality was significantly worse for Ariston pHc. The marginal adaptation decreased significantly after thermal and mechanical loading for Definite and Ariston pHc.

Conclusions

In terms of the investigated aspects of mechanical performance, the tested composites seemed to be inferior to amalgam. Further clinical studies are needed to evaluate the ability of composite restorations to provide support for RDP clasps.

Clinical relevance

The use of composites as direct restoration materials should be avoided in teeth, which serve as abutments for clasp-retained RDPs.

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

Access this article

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
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rice JA, Lynch CD, McAndrew R, Milward PJ (2011) Tooth preparation for rest seats for cobalt–chromium removable partial dentures completed by general dental practitioners. J Oral Rehabil 38:72–78

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bergman B, Hugoson A, Olsson C-O (1982) Caries, periodontal and prosthetic findings in patients with removable partial dentures: a ten-year longitudinal study. J Prosthet Dent 48:506–514

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Carlsson GE, Hedegård B, Koivumaa KK (1976) Late results of treatment with partial dentures. J Oral Rehabil 3:267–272

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chandler JA, Brudvik JS (1984) Clinical evaluation of patients eight to nine years after placement of removable partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 51:736–743

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wagner B, Kern M (2000) Clinical evaluation of removable partial dentures 10 years after insertion: success rates, hygienic problems, and technical failures. Clin Oral Investig 4:74–80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Davenport JC, Basker RM, Heath JR, Ralph JP, Glantz PO (2000) A clinical guide to removable partial dentures. BDJ Books, London

    Google Scholar 

  7. Tyson KW, Scott BJ, Yemm R (2006) Understanding partial denture design. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  8. Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Loomans BA, Huysmans MC (2010) 12-year survival of composite vs. amalgam restorations. J Dent Res 89:1063–1067

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Manhart J, Chen H, Hamm G, Hickel R (2004) Buonocore memorial lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent 29:481–508

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Van Nieuwenhuysen JP, D’Hoore W, Carvalho J, Qvist V (2003) Long-term evaluation of extensive restorations in permanent teeth. J Dent 31:395–405

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bernardo M, Luis H, Martin MD, Leroux BG, Rue T, Leitão J, DeRouen TA (2007) Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial. J Am Dent Assoc 138:775–783

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Soncini JA, Maserejian NN, Trachtenberg F, Tavares M, Hayes C (2007) The longevity of amalgam versus compomer/composite restorations in posterior primary and permanent teeth: findings from the New England Children’s Amalgam Trial. J Am Dent Assoc 138:763–772

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hickel R, Kaaden C, Paschos E, Buerkle V, García-Godoy F, Manhart J (2005) Longevity of occlusally-stressed restorations in posterior primary teeth. Am J Dent 18:198–211

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Muraki H, Wakabayashi N, Park I, Ohyama T (2004) Finite element contact stress analysis of the RPD abutment tooth and periodontal ligament. J Dent 32:659–665

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Firtell DN, Jacobson TE (1983) Removable partial dentures with rotational paths of insertion: problem analysis. J Prosthet Dent 50:8–15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Beaumont AJ Jr (1990) A clinical view of mandibular premolars in removable partial denture design. Quintessence Int 21:21–26

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wegmann U, Seebauer H, Mauksch J (1984) In vitro study of the dynamics of free-end saddle dentures with different supports. Dtsch Zahnarztl Z 41:210–214

    Google Scholar 

  18. Craig RG, Peyton FA (1967) Strain on the framework of a mandibular free-end saddle partial denture under load. J Biomed Mater Res 1:263–274

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lassila V, Holmlund I, Koivumaa KK (1985) Bite force and its correlations in different denture types. Acta Odontol Scand 43:127–132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Borchers L, Jung T, West M (1989) Creep of amalgam fillings under clasp rests. Dtsch Zahnarztl Z 44:802–805

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mehl A, Gloger W, Kunzelmann KH, Hickel R (1997) A new optical 3-D device for the detection of wear. J Dent Res 76:1799–1807

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Roulet JF (1987) A materials scientist’s view: assessment of wear and marginal integrity. Quintessence Int 18:543–552

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Aoda K, Shimamura I, Tahara Y, Sakurai K (2010) Retainer design for unilateral extension base partial removable dental prosthesis by three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Prosthodont Res 54:84–91

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Steiner M, Mitsias ME, Ludwig K, Kern M (2009) In vitro evaluation of a mechanical testing chewing simulator. Dent Mater 25:494–499

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Peyron MA, Mishellany A, Woda A (2004) Particle size distribution of food boluses after mastication of six natural foods. J Dent Res 83:578–582

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Beatty MW, Pidaparti RM (1993) Elastic and fracture properties of dental direct filling materials. Biomaterials 14:999–1002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Asgar K, Sultfin L (1965) Brittle fracture of dental amalgam. J Dent Res 44:977–988

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Indrani DJ, Cook WD, Televantos F, Tyas MJ, Harcourt JK (1995) Fracture toughness of water-aged resin composite restorative materials. Dent Mater 11:201–207

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Braem M, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G (1994) Clinical relevance of laboratory fatigue studies. J Dent 22:97–102

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Heintze SD, Zappini G, Rousson V (2005) Wear of ten dental restorative materials in five wear simulators—results of a round robin test. Dent Mater 21:304–317

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Condon JR, Ferracane JL (1996) Evaluation of composite wear with a new multi-mode oral wear simulator. Dent Mater 12:218–226

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Htang A, Ohsawa M, Matsumoto H (1995) Fatigue resistance of composite restorations: effect of filler content. Dent Mater 11:7–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Lohbauer U, von der Horst T, Frankenberger R, Krämer N, Petschelt A (2003) Flexural fatigue behavior of resin composite dental materials. Dent Mater 19:435–440

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Turssi CP, Ferracane JL, Vogel K (2005) Filler features and their effects on wear and degree of conversion of particulate dental resin composites. Biomaterials 26:4932–4937

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Frankenberger R, Tay FR (2005) Self-etch vs etch-and-rinse adhesives: effect of thermo-mechanical fatigue loading on marginal quality of bonded resin composite restorations. Dent Mater 21:397–412

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Dietschi D, Herzfeld D (1998) In vitro evaluation of marginal and internal adaptation of class II resin composite restorations after thermal and occlusal stressing. Eur J Oral Sci 106:1033–1042

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Krejci I, Besek M, Lutz F (1994) Clinical and SEM study of Tetric resin composite in posterior teeth: 12-month results. Am J Dent 7:27–30

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Kournetas N, Chakmakchi M, Kakaboura A, Rahiotis C, Geis-Gerstorfer J (2004) Marginal and internal adaptation of class II ormocer and hybrid resin composite restorations before and after load cycling. Clin Oral Investig 8:123–129

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Manhart J, Kunzelmann K-H, Chen HY, Hickel R (2000) Mechanical properties and wear behavior of light-cured packable composite resins. Dent Mater 16:33–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Chen HY, Kunzelmann K-H, Manhart J, Hickel R (2000) Setting stress of light-cured packable composite resins (abstract). J Dent Res 79(Spec Iss):246

    Google Scholar 

  42. Burmann P, Cardoso PEC, Silveira B, Casagrande L, Anziliero L (2000) The influence of composite resin polymerization techniques on microleakage (abstract). J Dent Res 79(Spec Iss):183–4

    Google Scholar 

  43. Cardoso PE, Placido E, Francci CE, Perdigão J (1999) Microleakage of class V resin-based composite restorations using five simplified adhesive systems. Am J Dent 12:291–294

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Oberlander H, Hiller KA, Thonemann B, Schmalz G (2001) Clinical evaluation of packable composite resins in class-II restorations. Clin Oral Investig 5:102–107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. American Dental Association (1996) Acceptance program guidelines—restorative materials. http://www.ada.org/prof/prac/stands/restmat.pdf

  46. Braun AR, Frankenberger R, Kramer N (2001) Clinical performance and margin analysis of Ariston pHc versus Solitaire I as posterior restorations after 1 year. Clin Oral Investig 5:139–147

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Krämer N, Garcia-Godoy F, Frankenberger R (2005) Evaluation of resin composite materials. Part II: In vivo investigations. Am J Dent 18:75–81

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Lloyd CH, Adamson M (1985) The fracture toughness (KIC) of amalgam. J Oral Rehabil 12:59–68

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Choi KK, Ferracane JL, Hilton TJ, Charlton D (2000) Properties of packable dental composites. J Esthet Dent 12:216–226

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The authors gratefully thank Mr. StD D. Gebhart for his help with the translation into English.

Declaration of Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gergo Mitov.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pospiech, P., Nagel, F., Gebhart, F. et al. In vitro investigation of the performance of different restorative materials under cast circumferential clasps for removable dental prostheses. Clin Oral Invest 16, 1659–1667 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-011-0653-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-011-0653-5

Keywords

Navigation