Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

In vitro comparison of implant- versus gingiva-supported removable dentures in anterior and posterior applications

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

Abstract

Objectives

Removable dentures with different denture teeth may provide different performance and resistance in implant and gingival situations, or anterior and posterior applications.

Materials and methods

Two situations of removable dentures were investigated: gingiva (flexible) and implant (rigid) bearing. For simulating the gingiva/jaw situation, the dentures were supported with flexible lining material. For the implant situation, implants (d = 4.1 mm) were screwed into polymethylenmethacrylate (PMMA) resin. Two commercial (Vita-Physiodens MRP, SR Vivodent/Orthotyp DCL) and two experimental materials (EXP1, EXP2) were investigated in anterior (A) and posterior (P) tooth locations. Chewing simulation was performed, and failures were analyzed (microscopy, SEM). Fracture strength of surviving dentures was determined.

Results

Only EXP1 revealed failures during chewing simulation. Failures varied between anterior and posterior locations, and between implant (P:4x; A:7x) or gingiva (P:1x; A:2x) situations. Kaplan-Meier log-rank test revealed significant differences for implant situations (p < 0.002), but not for gingiva bearing (p > 0.093). Fracture testing in the implant situation provided significantly highest values for EXP2 (1476.4 ± 532.2 N) in posterior location, and for DCL (1575.4 ± 264.4 N) and EXP2 (1797.0 ± 604.2 N) in anterior location. For gingival bearing, significantly highest values were found for DCL/P (2148.3 ± 836.3 N), and significantly lowest results for EXP1/A (308.2 ± 115.6 N). For EXP1 + EXP2 + Vita/P and for EXP1/A no significant differences were found between implant- or gingiva-supported situations.

Conclusions

Anterior and posterior teeth showed different material-dependent in vitro performance, further influenced by implant/gingiva bearing. While an implant in anterior application increased fracture strength of two materials, it decreased fracture values of 3/4 of the materials in posterior application.

Clinical relevance

Survival of denture teeth may be influenced by material, oral position, and bearing situation.

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. Haraldson T, Carlsson GE (1977) Bite force and oral function in patients with osseointegrated oral implants. Scand J Dent Res 85:200–208

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bakke M, Holm B, Gotfredsen K (2002) Masticatory function and patient satisfaction with implant-supported mandibular overdentures: a prospective 5-year study. Int J Prosthodont 15:575–581

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Vallittu PK, Lassila VP, Lappalainen R (1993) Evaluation of damage to removable dentures in two cities in Finland. Acta Odontol Scand 51:363–369

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Spratley MH (1987) An investigation of the adhesion of acrylic resin teeth to dentures. J Prosthet Dent 58:389–392

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Barpal D, Curtis DA, Finzen F, Perry J, Gansky SA (1998) Failure load of acrylic resin denture teeth bonded to high impact acrylic resins. J Prosthet Dent 80:666–671

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Meng GK, Chung K, Fletcher-Stark ML, Zhang H (2010) Effect of surface treatments and cyclic loading on the bond strength of acrylic resin denture teeth with autopolymerized repair acrylic resin. J Prosthet Dent 103:245–252

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Patil SB, Naveen BH, Patil NP (2006) Bonding acrylic teeth to acrylic resin denture bases: a review. Gerodontology 23:131–139

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ghazal M, Kern M (2010) Wear of denture teeth and their human enamel antagonists. Quintessence Int 41:157–163

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mello PC, Coppedê AR, Macedo AP, de MdGC M, Rodrigues RCS, Ribeiro RF (2009) Abrasion wear resistance of different artificial teeth opposed to metal and composite antagonists. J Appl Oral Sci 17:451–456

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Reis KR, Bonfante G, Pegoraro LF, Conti PCR, Oliveira PCG, Kaizer OB (2008) In vitro wear resistance of three types of polymethyl methacrylate denture teeth. J Appl Oral Sci 16:176–180

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Suwannaroop P, Chaijareenont P, Koottathape N, Takahashi H, Arksornnukit M (2011) In vitro wear resistance, hardness and elastic modulus of artificial denture teeth. Dent Mater J 30:461–468

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Preis V, Letsch C, Handel G, Behr M, Schneider-Feyrer S, Rosentritt M (2013) Influence of substructure design, veneer application technique, and firing regime on the in vitro performance of molar zirconia crowns. Dent Mater 29:e113–e121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Preis V, Dowerk T, Behr M, Kolbeck C, Rosentritt M (2014) Influence of cusp inclination and curvature on the in vitro failure and fracture resistance of veneered zirconia crowns. Clin Oral Investig 18:891–900

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rosentritt M, Behr M, Van der Zel JM, Feilzer AJ (2009) Approach for valuating the influence of laboratory simulation. Dent Mater 25:348–352

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rosentritt M, Siavikis G, Behr M, Kolbeck C, Handel G (2008) Approach for valuating the significance of laboratory simulation. J Dent 36:1048–1053

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rosentritt M, Behr M, Gebhard R, Handel G (2006) Influence of stress simulation parameters on the fracture strength of all-ceramic fixed-partial dentures. Dent Mater 22:176–182

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Aboushelib MN, Feilzer AJ, Kleverlaan CJ (2009) Bridging the gap between clinical failure and laboratory fracture strength tests using a fractographic approach. Dent Mater 25:383–391

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Quinn JB, Quinn GD, Kelly JR, Scherrer SS (2005) Fractographic analyses of three ceramic whole crown restoration failures. Dent Mater 21:920–929

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Quinn GD (2007) Fractography of ceramics and glasses. NIST recommended practice guide. special publication 960–16. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Washington DC

    Book  Google Scholar 

  20. Abernethy RB (2000) The new Weibull handbook, 4th edn. North Palm Beach, Florida

    Google Scholar 

  21. Brosius G, Brosius F (1995) SPSS, base system and professional statistics, 1st edn. International Thomson Publishing, Bonn

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  23. Clark TG, Bradburn MJ, Love SB, Altmann DG (2003) Survival analysis part I: basic concepts and first analysis. Br J Cancer 89:232–238

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Schwindling FS, Dittmann B, Rammelsberg P (2014) Double-crown-retained removable dental prostheses: a retrospective study of survival and complications. J Prosthet Dent 112:488–493

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Behr M, Hofmann E, Rosentritt M, Lang R, Handel G (2000) Technical failure rates of double crown-retained removable partial dentures. Clin Oral Investig 4:87–90

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kawano F, Ohguri T, Ichikawa T, Mizuno I, Hasegawa A (2002) Shock absorbability and hardness of commercially available denture teeth. Int J Prosthodont 15:243–247

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the manufacturers for providing the materials.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, University Medical Center Regensburg, 93042, Regensburg, Germany

    Martin Rosentritt, Felix Heidtkamp, Sebastian Hahnel & Verena Preis

  2. Department of Orthodontics, University Medical Center Regensburg, 93042, Regensburg, Germany

    Helmut Hösl

Authors
  1. Martin Rosentritt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Felix Heidtkamp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Helmut Hösl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sebastian Hahnel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Verena Preis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Verena Preis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rosentritt, M., Heidtkamp, F., Hösl, H. et al. In vitro comparison of implant- versus gingiva-supported removable dentures in anterior and posterior applications. Clin Oral Invest 20, 275–281 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1502-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1502-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation