Static and dynamic failure load of fiber-reinforced composite and particulate filler composite cantilever resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to evaluate in vitro the influence of fiber reinforcement and luting cement on the static failure load (SFL) and dynamic failure load (DFL) of simulated two-unit cantilever resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses (RBFDPs).


METHODS
Forty-six particulate filler composite (PFC) beams and 76 fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) beams were prefabricated and subsequently luted (RelyX ARC or Panavia F2.0) onto flat ground bovine enamel. The SFL of the different specimen types was determined with a peel test and the DFL was determined with a rotating cantilever beam fatigue testing device.


RESULTS
The PFC specimens showed a significantly lower SFL than the FRC specimens. The luting cement showed a significant effect on the SFL of the PFC specimens, but not with FRC. The DFL of PFC specimens was significantly lower than for FRC specimens. The luting cement showed a significant effect on the DFL of the PFC specimens, but not so with FRC. With both the SFL and the DFL tests all PFC beams fractured, leaving the bonded part on the tooth surface, but FRC beams partially debonded from the tooth surface, leaving fibers connected to the enamel surface to a varying extent. Coincidentally, the uncured fibers turned out to be prone to aging, an effect which has been investigated.


CONCLUSIONS
Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that PFC without fiber reinforcement is not suitable for the fabrication of two-unit cantilever RBFDPs, despite the significant effect of the luting cement, but FRC is suitable.
Keulemans
Filip
F
Academic Center for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Department of Dental Materials Science, University of Amsterdam and VU Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. f.keulemans@acta.nl
Van Dalen
Andy
A
Kleverlaan
Cornelis J
CJ
Feilzer
Albert J
AJ
D000268:Adhesiveness; D000818:Animals; D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate / Q000737:chemistry; D002417:Cattle; D002484:Cementation / Q000379:methods; D003188:Composite Resins / Q000737:chemistry*; D003738:Dental Cements / Q000737:chemistry; D003743:Dental Enamel / Q000648:ultrastructure; D003764:Dental Materials / Q000737:chemistry*; D017267:Dental Prosthesis Design; D019232:Dental Restoration Failure; D003799:Dental Stress Analysis; D016379:Denture, Partial, Fixed, Resin-Bonded; D055115:Light-Curing of Dental Adhesives; D008422:Materials Testing; D008689:Methacrylates / Q000737:chemistry; D011092:Polyethylene Glycols / Q000737:chemistry; D011109:Polymethacrylic Acids / Q000737:chemistry; D019904:Polymethyl Methacrylate / Q000737:chemistry; D019279:Resin Cements / Q000737:chemistry; D012399:Rotation; D012822:Silicon Dioxide / Q000737:chemistry; D013314:Stress, Mechanical; D013499:Surface Properties; D015040:Zirconium / Q000737:chemistry
C076805:Clearfil Porcelain Bond; C438313:Clearfil SE Bond; D003188:Composite Resins; D003738:Dental Cements; D003764:Dental Materials; C500742:ED Primer II; D008689:Methacrylates; C438843:Panavia-Fluoro; D011109:Polymethacrylic Acids; C462240:RelyX ARC; D019279:Resin Cements; C485628:Stick resin; C083568:Z100 composite resin; C496140:everStick; D011092:Polyethylene Glycols; D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate; D012822:Silicon Dioxide; D019904:Polymethyl Methacrylate; C041330:Scotchbond; D015040:Zirconium