Effect of Cement Type on Fracture Resistance and Mode of Failure of Monolith vs Bilayered Zirconia Single Crowns

Comparison of Fracture Resistance between Implant-supported Bis-acryl Interim 3-unit FDPs Using Six Different Strengthening Mechanisms: An In Vitro Study

AIM

To investigate six different strengthening mechanisms for three-unit implant-supported provisional restorations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Six techniques of provisional fixed prostheses (PFP) reinforcement were investigated and were assigned to different groups (n = 10): group (ZP) zirconia powder, group (SK8) silk thread wrapped as a figure-of-8 pattern around middle third of abutment, group (RC8) size 00 retraction cord wrapped as a figure-of-8 pattern around middle third of abutment, group (RF8) Resin impregnated glass fiber ribbon wrapped as a figure-of-8 pattern around abutment, group (KV8) Kevlar 29 cord wrapped as a figure-of-8 pattern around middle third of abutment, group (KV) Kevlar 29 strands incorporated in resin mix. Compared against unenforced bis-acryl as control group (CL). Seventy Metal Dies were 3D printed having Soft Tissue Gingiva Mask. Using a custom-made silicone Index, 70 PFP were fabricated (10 of each group) and were cemented to their corresponding metal dies using zinc polycarboxylate cement. All specimens were thermal cycled for 1000 cycles using order of 20 seconds at 55°C and 20 seconds at 5°C with 10 seconds transport. Fracture resistance test was done using universal testing machine. All specimens were loaded to failure. Data were collected, tabulated and statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test showed no significant difference between data in each group. So, data are normally distributed in each group. Descriptive statistics showed higher mean values of CL group (780.8 ± 164) followed by RF8 group (614.2 ± 158.2), followed by RC8 group (550.2 ± 339.2), followed by KV8 group (442.1 ± 198.4), followed by KV group (403.9 ± 306), followed by SK8 group (175.9 ± 90.8), and finally ZP group (136.5 ± 135.7). One-way ANOVA revealed significant difference between the tested groups (p = 0.036).

CONCLUSION

Bis-acryl provisional restorations had better mean fracture resistance values than all other strengthening mechanisms. Bis-acryl provisional restorations did not gain more strength by any of the added materials. One-way ANOVA revealed significant difference between all tested groups.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Provisional restorations over implant should be strong enough to serve for the long period of bone and tissue healing. Current materials alone cannot survive for long. It serves as temporization between steps of fixed restorations construction. How to cite this article: Rayyan M, Sayed M, Hujeiry AM et al. Comparison of Fracture Resistance between Implant-supported Bis-acryl Interim 3-unit FDPs Using Six Different Strengthening Mechanisms: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2023;24(11):840-846.