Advertisement

Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 1217–1223 | Cite as

Influence of attachment design and material on the retention of resin-bonded attachments

  • Stan JagodinEmail author
  • Martin Sasse
  • Sandra Freitag-Wolf
  • Matthias Kern
Original Article
  • 138 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

The purpose of this laboratory study was to evaluate the influence of the attachment design and material on the retention of resin-bonded attachments (RBAs) before and after dynamic loading.

Materials and methods

Forty-eight caries-free human premolars were prepared for RBAs fabricated either from a CoCr alloy or from zirconia ceramic. Specimens were divided into three groups (n = 16 each). Two groups had a standard attachment design for alloys (group M made from a CoCr alloy and group Z1 made from zirconia ceramic). The third group had an attachment design optimized for zirconia ceramic (group Z2 made from zirconia ceramic). Attachments were bonded to the acid-etched enamel of the premolars using a phosphate monomer containing adhesive resin. Subgroups of eight specimens each were either debonded using a tensile force in a universal testing machine at a cross-head speed of 2 mm/min (S) or were exposed to dynamic loading with 50 N over 1200,000 loading cycles in a chewing simulator prior to debonding (D).

Results

There were no significant differences in the initial failure loads of groups. With the exception of subgroup Z1-D, all specimens survived the dynamic loading. Statistical analysis showed that dynamic loading caused a significant decrease of failure loads in group Z1. In contrast, subgroup Z2-D exhibited significantly higher failure loads compared to the subgroup Z1-D.

Conclusions

The results suggest that zirconia RBAs fabricated with an optimized attachment design may be a valid clinical alternative to metal RBAs.

Clinical relevance

Clinical data on the long-term potential of zirconia RBAs is required before these restorations can be recommended for general use.

Keywords

Resin-bonded attachments RBAs, all-ceramic Fracture load Fatigue load Dye penetration Zirconia 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the support of this study by Bredent, Senden, Germany, by providing their material free of charge, as well as by Neue Zähne, Osnabrück, Germany, by manufacturing the zirconia restorations free of charge.

Compliance with ethical standards

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.

References

  1. 1.
    Marinello CP, Schärer P (1987) Resin-bonded etched cast extracoronal attachments for removable partial dentures: clinical experiences. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 7(2):36–49Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kern M (1991) Care of young female patient using adhesive attachments and removable partial denture. Quintessenz 42(4):577–590Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kern M (2005) Single retainer resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses and resin-bonded attachments—proven innovation. Zahnärztl Mitt 95(21):2878–2884Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kern M, Simons K (1999) Resin-bonded attachments for removable partial dentures. Zahnärztl Mitt 89(10):1232–1237Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kleimeier B, Kern M (1992) Resin-bonded attachments—use in severe periodontitis. Parodontol 3(4):259–270Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kern M (1998) Resin-bonded attachments for removable partial dentures—a 7-year follow up of young female patient. Quintessenz 49(1):7–12Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vermeulen AH, Keltjens HM, van't Hof MA, Käyser AF (1996) Ten-year evaluation of removable partial dentures: survival rates based on retreatment, not wearing and replacement. J Prosthet Dent 76(3):267–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Studer SP, Mäder C, Stahel W, Schärer P (1998) A retrospective study of combined fixed-removable reconstructions with their analysis of failures. J Oral Rehabil 25(7):513–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Peters S (1986) Comparison of tooth structure removal for adhesive and crown preparation. Quintessenz 37(12):2039–2044Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Edelhoff D, Sorensen JA (2002) Tooth structure removal associated with various preparation designs for anterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 87(5):503–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Larson TD (2008) Atraumatic tooth preparation. Northwest Dent 87(1):29–34Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stober T, Bermejo JL, Séché AC, Lehmann F, Rammelsberg P, Bömicke W (2015) Electroplated and cast double crown-retained removable dental prostheses: 6-year results from a randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 19:1129–1236.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-014-1335-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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):413–418Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kern M, Knode H, Strub JR (1991) The all-porcelain, resin-bonded bridge. Quintessence Int 22(4):257–262Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kern M (2017) Fifteen-year survival of anterior all-ceramic cantilever resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses. J Dent 56:133–135.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2016.11.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sasse M, Kern M (2014) All-ceramic resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses: treatment planning, clinical procedures and outcome. Quintessence Int 45(4):291–297.  https://doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.a31328 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kern M, Passia N, Sasse M, Yazigi C (2017) Ten-year outcome of zirconia ceramic cantilever resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses and the influence of the reasons for missing incisors. J Dent 65:51–55.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2017.07.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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):117–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shahin R, Tannous F, Kern M (2014) Inlay-retained cantilever fixed dental prostheses to substitute a single premolar: impact of zirconia framework design after dynamic loading. Eur J Oral Sci 122(4):310–316.  https://doi.org/10.1111/eos.12134 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kern M (2010) Controlled airborne-particle abrasion of zirconia ceramic restorations. J Prosthet Dent 103(2):127–128.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(10)60016-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kern M (2017) RBFDPs: resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses, 1st edn. Quintessence, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kern M (2015) Bonding to oxide ceramics—laboratory testing versus clinical outcome. Dent Mater 31(1):8–14.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2014.06.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kern M, Thompson VP (1995) Durability of resin bonds to a cobalt-chromium alloy. J Dent 23(1):47–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rosentritt M, Ries S, Kolbeck C, Westphal M, Richter EJ, Handel G (2009) Fracture characteristics of anterior resin-bonded zirconia-fixed partial dentures. Clin Oral Investig 13(4):453–457.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-009-0254-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Koutayas SO, Kern M, Ferraresso F, Strub JR (2000) Influence of design and mode of loading on the fracture strength of all-ceramic resin-bonded fixed partial dentures. An in-vitro study in a dual-axis chewing simulator. J Prosthet Dent 83(5):540–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Koutayas SO, Kern M, Ferraresso F, Strub JR (2002) Influence of framework design on the fracture strength of mandibular anterior all-ceramic resin-bonded fixed partial dentures. Int J Prosthodont 15(3):223–229Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schindler HJ, Stengel E, Spiess WE (1998) Feedback control during mastication of solid food textures—a clinical-experimental study. J Prosthet Dent 80(3):330–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Steiner M, Mitsias ME, Ludwig K, Kern M (2009) In vitro evaluation of a mechanical testing chewing simulator. Dent Mater 25(4):494–499.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2008.09.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rosentritt M, Behr M, van der Zel JM, Feilzer AJ (2009) Approach for valuating the influence of laboratory simulation. Dent Mater 25(3):348–352.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2008.08.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Puschmann D, Wolfart S, Ludwig K, Kern M (2009) Load-bearing capacity of all-ceramic posterior inlay-retained fixed dental prostheses. Eur J Oral Sci 117(3):312–318.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0722.2009.00626.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Prosthodontics, Propaedeutics and Dental Materials, School of DentistryChristian-Albrechts UniversityKielGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Medical Informatics and StatisticsChristian-Albrechts UniversityKielGermany

Personalised recommendations