Next Article in Journal
Online Running-Gait Generation for Bipedal Robots with Smooth State Switching and Accurate Speed Tracking
Next Article in Special Issue
Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy as a Helpful Method for Rapid Osseointegration of Dental Implants: Animal Study
Previous Article in Journal
Stability Control of Quadruped Robot Based on Active State Adjustment
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Effects of Intrusion of Anterior Teeth by Skeletal Anchorage in Deep Bite Patients; A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

An Investigation of the Fracture Loads Involved in the Framework of Removable Partial Dentures Using Two Types of All-Ceramic Restorations

1
Dental Technology Department, College of Applied Medical Science, King Khalid University, Abha 61421, Saudi Arabia
2
Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha 61421, Saudi Arabia
3
Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha 61421, Saudi Arabia
4
Dental Health Department, College of Applied Medical Science, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia
5
Department of General Surgery and Medical-Surgical Specialties, School of Dentistry, University of Catania, 95124 Catania, Italy
6
Multidisciplinary Department of Medical-Surgical and Odontostomatological Specialties, University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, 80121 Naples, Italy
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Biomimetics 2023, 8(1), 113; https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics8010113
Submission received: 2 February 2023 / Revised: 21 February 2023 / Accepted: 6 March 2023 / Published: 9 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biomimetic Approach to Dental Implants)

Abstract

:
Retention and support are needed for removable partial denture stability. The stability can be achieved by clasps, occlusal and cingulum rests on healthy abutment teeth. However, implants or crowns can be used to support the removable partial denture instated on unhealthy abutment teeth. This study was conducted to investigate the fracture strength of two types of all-ceramic restorations used as abutments for the removable partial denture framework. The crowns were manufactured with two types of ceramic materials: zirconia and IPS e.max Press ceramics. The metal alloy (cobalt-chrome) was cast to form the removable partial denture framework. A universal testing machine was used to evaluate the fracture strength of both ceramic crown materials. The results presented no fractures in all-ceramic crowns, but deformation of the partial denture frameworks occurred. With the limitation of this study, it can be concluded that zirconia and IPS e.max Press ceramic can be used as abutments to provide adequate support to the removable partial denture.

1. Introduction

Partially dentate problems are still present in dental clinical practices. An increase in these problems means that, over time, patients may lose more than one tooth and become partially dentate. These scenarios will generally increase the demand for dental prosthodontics [1]. This includes the most popular prostheses for elderly patients—removable partial dentures (RPDs). Implants, bridges, and RPDs are potential options to restore missing teeth for the partially dentate patient [2,3,4,5]. However, due to the age and periodontal condition of the patient such as gingivitis and periodontitis, RPDs are the most suitable choice for treatment [6].
The patient’s age can affect the success of the dental implant treatment. The elderly have less healing time due to the decreased formation of new bone around an implant [7]. Therefore, dental implants have yet to be considered a suitable treatment for everyone [8]. The human jaw could be affected by osteoporosis [9]. Due to the composition of the maxilla, which contains more trabecular bone than the mandible, the maxilla jaw is more likely to be affected by osteoporosis than the mandible jaw [10]. Considering all these factors, RPD is the most common treatment option [6].
Despite the effect of the RPD on the periodontal condition and other problems, for instance, pain in the soft tissues, especially with free-end saddles [11], RPD is still one of the treatment options in clinical practice to resolve missing teeth problems [12]. Some principles must be applied when constructing RPDs, such as retention and support to resist oral forces and enhance denture stability. These can be achieved by incorporating occlusal, cingulum rest seats and clasps. This process requires a tooth in good condition to apply these rest seats. However, due to the condition of the abutment teeth, which may prevent these seats from being incorporated, implants or crowns may be used to achieve the benefits of the rest seats and support the RPD framework [13]. Different studies have discussed using implants and crowns as an abutment for the RPD framework [11,14,15]. Crowns could be fitted as an abutment by using cast metal or porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) crowns, which have been considered acceptable results due to strength and longevity factors [16]. Alternatively, and for aesthetic reasons, crowns could be fabricated using all-ceramic materials and act as an abutment to support the RPD framework [17].
Due to the disadvantages such as color and biocompatibility, the demand for aesthetic materials such as all-ceramics is increasing. Despite dental ceramic materials’ high performance and strength, fractures are commonly reported with this type of restoration [18]. Clinical complaints are still presented regarding all-ceramic restoration fracturing [19], while most complaints in clinical practice are about fracturing of all-ceramic restorations in the posterior region [20]. Even with a comparison between PFM and all-ceramic restoration, a systematic review by Sorrentino et al. [21] concluded that all-ceramic restorations showed lower survival rates than PFM restorations, which indicates how the type of restoration can affect the success of supporting the RPD framework. Fracturing of all-ceramic restorations could be caused by occlusal and mastication forces created by patients [22,23]; for this reason, all-ceramic restorations are more suitable for restoring the anterior teeth and are still debatable to be used in the posterior region [24]. Further, Rekow et al. [25] suggested that, due to the complaints about all-ceramic restoration fracturing, the strength of these types of restoration is insufficient for long-term service in posterior teeth.
In addition, fracturing of all-ceramic restorations can be caused by a load of biting forces exerted, particularly in the posterior areas [26]. Numerous studies have investigated load forces in the patient’s mouth, and greater load forces were observed in the posterior areas. Other studies investigated the biting forces’ mean value and standard deviation [27,28,29]. On the other hand, the load forces in the patient’s mouth are different when dental prostheses are involved [30]. For instance, Miyaura et al. [31] reported that biting forces for people with full metal crowns are 333.2 ± 234.1 N, for people with bridges are 323.8 ± 236.3 N and for people with RPDs are 140.5 ± 126.4 N. From previous studies, the mean value and standard deviation of the mastication and biting forces exerted in the patient’s mouth are theoretically lower than the mean value and standard deviation of all-ceramic restoration materials. In addition, the results are significant in comparison between the mean value and standard deviation. In comparing fracture strength between PFM and all-ceramic restoration, Rao and Chowdhary [32] observed 4736.5 ± 2267.6 N for zirconia, 1566 ± 505.7 N for IPS Empress and 3275.7 ± 468 N for PFM restorations. Most of these results have been achieved by applying the load forces directly to the tooth during the test of the samples.
Limited previous studies were found to investigate the fracture strength of all-ceramic restorations for removable partial dentures. For this reason, this study aimed to investigate and compare the fracture strength of two selected types of all-ceramic restorations involved in the removable partial denture framework.

2. Materials and Methods

Computer-Aided Design/Computer-Aided Manufacturing (CAD/CAM) was used to mill the final restoration, such as zirconia samples or wax with IPS e.max Press and RPD samples, to standardize the sample fabrication and dimension [26,27,28,29,31,33].

2.1. Model Fabrication

A unilateral edentulous space with natural teeth remaining in both anterior and posterior models, known as class III modification 1, was selected for this study (Figure 1). The selected model was duplicated as a dental stone model using a mold made of silicon material.
The duplicated model was trimmed until it reached the target area, the edentulous area between two prepared teeth (distally for 1st premolar and mesially for the 2nd molar). (Figure 2). The selection of these specific teeth was according to the previous research [26,33]. After the investigation of the occlusal and biting forces, it was found that the most forces were recorded in the posterior region and particularly in the first premolars and molars, which have been recorded at the range between 481.6 ± 1000 N for both males and females without any dental prosthodontics involved [27,28,29]. However, involving different dental prosthesis types, the range was between 140.5 ± 333.2 [31]. This targeted area was then duplicated as a master resin model using the same technique mentioned above. The resin material was selected to mimic the modulus elasticity of human dentition. The master model was scanned using 3D scanner to create a digital form which was used to design and produce the RPD and crowns.

2.2. Crown Fabrication

The crowns were designed on the digitally scanned model with these measurements (thicknesses 1.2 mm, chamfer 1 mm deep, convergence 6 degrees, occlusal rests preparation 1 mm (distally for the first premolar and mesially for the second molar)) using Amman Girrback Ceramill 600 software. Two ceramic materials were used to fabricate all-ceramic crowns (IPS e.max Press lithium disilicate glass ceramics and zirconia).
For the IPS e.max empress, the designed crowns were milled into the wax using the CAM process (milling manufacturing). The wax crowns were then sprued, invested, cast, divested, finished and glazed according to the manufacturer’s instructions for the IPS e.max Press ceramic materials (IvoclarVivadent, Koblach, Austria).
For zirconia materials, the designed crowns were milled into the zirconia using the CAM process (milling manufacturing), and the zirconia crowns were sintered according to the manufacturer’s instructions.
All IPS e.max Press and zirconia crowns were cemented into the resin models using 3M ESPE Relyx luting Cement and scanned for the RPD framework (saddle and occlusal rest area) design.

2.3. RPD Framework Fabrication

The RPD framework was designed using the digitally scanned model with the default thickness of the saddle and occlusal rests area (thicknesses 1.2 mm and occlusal rest thinness preparation 1.2 mm (distally for the first premolar and mesially for the second molar)) using Amman Girrback Ceramill 600 software. Moreover, a distance of approximately 3 mm was created between the saddle and the alveolar ridge to allow the universal testing machine crosshead to be generated when the load is applied (Figure 3). The designed RPD was milled into the wax using the CAM process (milling manufacturing). The wax crowns were then sprued, invested, cast, divested, finished and polished according to the manufactures instruction for BEGO (Wironit, Bremen, Germany) cobalt-chrome alloy materials. The RPDs were ready to be fitted into the crowns.
All the samples were subjected to the test by a universal testing machine (Admet, Lloyd LRX, Largo, FL, USA). A single fracture load was applied at a rate of 1 mm/min to investigate the fracture strength of both ceramic crown types (IPS e.max Press ceramics and zirconia) for RPDs.

2.4. Samples Summery

Twenty samples were fabricated; each had two all-ceramic crowns connected by the removable partial denture saddle framework, with two occlusal rest seats on the abutment crowns merged distally in the first premolar and mesially in the second molar (Figure 4 and Table 1).

3. Results

Ten samples from both groups (IPS e.max Press and zirconia) were subjected to the test by a universal testing machine to compare each group’s mean fracture strength. The results showed no fracturing of ceramic crowns for both groups after applying a single cycle of fracture strength test at a 1 mm/min rate, which prevented the results from being recorded, and these result were excluded.
For the RPD saddles with both ceramic crowns, a deformation was observed. This could be related to the differences in design and weak mechanical properties (modulus of elasticity and tensile strength) of Co-Cr compared to all-ceramic restorations (Table 2 and Figure 5).
The maximum load of the RPD framework with the zirconia group was at 400 N with a maximum deflection of 1.9409 mm. However, the minimum load was at 206 N with a maximum deflection of 1.9014 mm (Figure 6).
For the RPD framework with the IPS e.max Press group, the maximum load was at 374 N with a maximum deflection of 2.3335 mm, while the minimum load was at 174 N with a minimum deflection of 1.1745 mm (Figure 7).
The mean fracture strength of zirconia crowns from the previous research [34] was significantly higher than that of RPD saddles with zirconia crowns in this study (p ≤ 0.05) (Table 3 and Figure 8)
The mean fracture strength of zirconia crowns from the previous research [31] was significantly higher than that of RPD saddles with zirconia crowns in this study (p ≤ 0.05) (Table 3). This indicated the possibility of using zirconia crowns to support RPD and as restoration for the posterior teeth (Figure 7).
The mean fracture strength of IPS e.max Press crowns from the previous research [32] was significantly higher than that of RPD saddles with IPS e.max Press crowns in this study (p ≤ 0.05) (Table 4). This indicated the possibility of using IPS e.max Press crowns to support RPD and as restorations for the posterior teeth (Figure 9).

4. Discussion

This study was carried out to investigate and compare the fracture strength of two types of ceramic restorations involved in the RPD framework and determine which type of ceramic restoration can be used to support the RPD framework.
Twenty samples were fabricated and divided into two groups: group A zirconia crowns and group B IPS e.max Press crowns. The CAD/CAM technology was used to fabricate all crowns with similar dimensions according to the previous study by Jang et al. [34,35] with a thicknesses of 1.2 mm, chamfer of 1 mm deep, convergence of 6 degrees, occlusal rests preparation of 1 mm. Due to the adequate strength of both ceramic materials, the Co-Cr saddle was deformed while applying the fracture load (Figure 10) [36]. Therefore, the fracturing of ceramic restorations was impossible, but this can be modified in future studies by modifying crown dimensions as the materials’ thickness impacts the fracture strength. Jang et al.’s [34] study recorded different fracture strengths using zirconia materials, which were classified into five groups: group 1 was 2359 N for crowns with 0.5 mm, group 2 was 3216 N for crowns with 1.0 mm, group 3 was 3898 N for crowns with 1.5 mm. However, for groups 4 and 5 (2 mm and 2.5 mm), the results could not be measured due to the strength of those materials leading to the resin model being broken.
A variety of studies have investigated all-ceramic restorations under the fracture fatigue resistance or until fractures occurred [32,37,38], yet none or limited studies investigated the connection between all-ceramic restorations and RPDs as reported in this study. The fracture test in this study was conducted by applying the fracture load to the saddle area which is connected to all-ceramic crowns by the occlusal rests. It was a single fracture load at a rate of 1 mm/min for each sample. However, this can be modified in future studies by performing a cycle test to simulate the survival rate and involving other RPD components such as clasps and cingulum rests. Those modifications may have a different outcome for all-ceramic restorations.
One factor that affects fracture test performance is the firmly located samples in the testing machine during the test. One of the IPS e.max Press crowns failed the test due to the improbably located occlusal rest, which led to the move and sliding of the RPD saddle during the test. That was not expected, as all samples were designed and fabricated using CAD/CAM. It was assumed that the RPD saddles would be accurate enough to obtain acceptable results. This assumption was related to the findings of a previous study, indicating that the adaptation of CAD/CAM fabricated dentures would be more accurate compared to the conventional methods [39]. It is worth mentioning that this was only noticed with one sample with IPS e.max crowns. This might be due to the fabrication process of the IPS e.max crowns via CAD/CAM producing wax crowns then pressed as the ceramic crown, or the excessive use of a glazing agent, which changed the dimension and geometrical shape of the fossa, occlusal rest or crown, causing improbable fitting of the RPD rest and saddle (Figure 11). Moreover, using a saddle with only an occlusal rest could be another drawback of the samples and study, as other components can improve denture retention and stability, such as the clasp or connectors.
All saddles in this study were designed by the Amman Girrback Ceramill software. The designed saddle and occlusal rest area dimensions were as follows: thicknesses of 1.2 mm and occlusal rest thinness preparation of 1.2 mm (distally for the first premolar and mesially for the second molar). The strength of any material may be affected by modified dimensions and design applied to the RPD and Co-Cr component, particularly for the cingulum and occlusal rest seats. This was confirmed in Sato et al.’s [40] report on thickness and shape impact on the designed occlusal rest’s fatigue strength. The study reported that the strength of the occlusal rest was increased with the increase in thickness. Furthermore, Sato et al. [40] provided some recommendations for the occlusal rest dimensions (such as a length of 3 mm, width of 3 mm and thickness of 1.0 mm) and designs (such as avoiding the sharp or over-rounded line angles).
Co-Cr alloy was used and selected for the RPD framework in this study because of its biocompatibility, mechanical and physical properties. Furthermore, Co-Cr alloy is the most used and affordable material for the RPD framework. The maximum fracture load was recorded on the RPD with the zirconia group at 400 N, while the minimum was with IPS e.max Press at 174 N. This can be related to the difference in mechanical strength between the ceramics used in this study (zirconia and IPS e.max Press).
Furthermore, the alloy material type and composition impact the outcome result according to Gapido et al.’s [41] study on the fatigue resistance between Ag-Pd-Cu-Au and Co-Cr as RPD materials. Their study indicated that Co-Cr alloys are more rigid and have greater ability to resist fatigue forces than Ag-Pd-Cu-Au alloys. Another study by Wu et al. [42] reported using Ticonium Premium alloy and Thermoflex acetyl resin as direct retainers for RPDs. Their study presented more significant deformation with acetyl resin than with Ticonium Premium alloy after 3 years of simulated use. A recent study investigated polyetheretherketone (PEEK) as a clasp material for RPD compared to Co-Cr. The results indicated that PEEK clasps had significantly less deformation in the fitting surface and approximately the same retentive force as Co-Cr clasps, suggesting the use of PEEK for aesthetic clasps for the RPD framework. Therefore, further studies can be applied to different RPD materials in future [41,42,43].
Lastly, the fracture test in this study was applied to the saddle area between the first premolar and second molar, which have been selected due to the maximum forces found in these regions according to the previous study. However, the outcomes might be changed using anterior teeth because of the different masticatory forces [44,45,46,47,48]. This led to the current and continued debate about whether to use all-ceramic restorations in the anterior or posterior teeth. A study indicated that all-ceramic restorations are more successful in anterior teeth than posterior [49] because the ceramic materials lack the necessary strength and the results of using all-ceramic restorations to restore posterior teeth are unpredictable [50]. However, the current dental ceramic materials, such as zirconia, have a significate mechanical strength for restoring posterior teeth. This debate might be reaching the end. Therefore, including both anterior and posterior teeth in the test may provide different outcomes for the benefit of the patient, dentistry and science.

5. Conclusions

With the limitation of this study, it can be concluded that all-ceramic restorations (zirconia and IPS e.max Press crowns) can support the framework of removable partial dentures, confirming this study’s hypothesis. Further studies of the all-ceramic restorations’ ability to support the removable partial denture framework of different materials and design is required.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization and methodology, S.K.V., F.H.A. and A.A.F.A.; software, L.I.N.A. and S.A.B.H.; validation, S.K.V., F.H.A., L.I.N.A. and S.A.B.H.; formal analysis, S.K.V. and F.H.A.; investigation, S.K.V. and F.H.A.; resources, A.A.F.A., F.H.A. and S.A.B.H.; data curation, S.K.V., F.H.A., L.I.N.A. and M.A.M.A.; writing—original draft preparation, S.K.V., F.H.A., G.M. and M.C.; writing—review and editing, S.K.V., L.I.N.A., S.A.B.H., G.M. and M.C.; visualization, F.H.A. and M.A.M.A.; supervision, L.I.N.A., A.A.F.A. and S.K.V.; project administration, S.K.V., F.H.A. and A.A.F.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors extend their appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia, for funding this work through the large group program number GPR/37/43.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their gratitude to King Khalid University, Saudi Arabia for providing administrative and technical support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

RPDRemovable partial Denture
NNewtons
Co-CrCobalt-chromium
CAD/CAMComputer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing
(PEEK)Polyetheretherketone

References

  1. Rekow, D.; Thompson, V.P. Engineering long term clinical success of advanced ceramic prostheses. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 2007, 18, 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Galeotti, A.; Uomo, R.; Spagnuolo, G.; Paduano, S.; Cimino, R.; Valletta, R.; D’Antò, V. Effect of pH on in vitro biocompatibility of orthodontic miniscrew implants. Prog Orthod. 2013, 14, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Milward, P.; Katechia, D.; Morgan, M.Z. Knowledge of removable partial denture wearers on denture hygiene. Br. Dent. J. 2013, 215, E20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Temelci, A.; Yılmaz, H.G.; Ünsal, G.; Uyanik, L.O.; Yazman, D.; Ayali, A.; Minervini, G. Investigation of the Wetting Properties of Thalassemia Patients’ Blood Samples on Grade 5 Titanium Implant Surfaces: A Pilot Study. Biomimetics 2023, 8, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Minervini, G.; Basili, M.; Franco, R.; Bollero, P.; Mancini, M.; Gozzo, L.; Romano, G.L.; Marrapodi, M.M.; Gorassini, F.; D’Amico, C.; et al. Periodontal Disease and Pregnancy: Correlation with Underweight Birth. Eur. J. Dent. 2022. Available online: http://www.thieme-connect.de/DOI/DOI?10.1055/s-0042-1757906 (accessed on 31 January 2023).
  6. Bohnenkamp, D.M. Removable Partial Dentures: Clinical Concepts. Dent. Clin. North Am. 2014, 58, 69–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wood, M.R.; Vermilyea, S.G. A review of selected dental literature on evidence-based treatment planning for dental implants: Report of the Committee on Research in Fixed Prosthodontics of the Academy of Fixed Prosthodontics. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2004, 92, 447–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ikebe, K.; Wada, M.; Kagawa, R.; Maeda, Y. Is old age a risk factor for dental implants? Jpn. Dent. Sci. Rev. 2009, 45, 59–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Minervini, G.; del Mondo, D.; Russo, D.; Cervino, G.; D’Amico, C.; Fiorillo, L. Stem Cells in Temporomandibular Joint Engineering: State of Art and Future Persectives. J. Craniofacial Surg. 2022, 33, 2181–2187. Available online: https://journals.lww.com/10.1097/SCS.0000000000008771 (accessed on 31 January 2023). [CrossRef]
  10. August, M.; Chung, K.; Chang, Y.; Glowacki, J. Influence of estrogen status on endosseous implant osseointegration. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2001, 59, 1285–1289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Sato, M.; Suzuki, Y.; Kurihara, D.; Shimpo, H.; Ohkubo, C. Effect of implant support on mandibular distal extension removable partial dentures: Relationship between denture supporting area and stress distribution. J. Prosthodont Res. 2013, 57, 109–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Gates, W.D.; Cooper, L.F.; Sanders, A.E.; Reside, G.J.; de Kok, I.J. The effect of implant-supported removable partial dentures on oral health quality of life. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2014, 25, 207–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ganz, S.D. Combination natural tooth and implant-borne removable partial denture: A clinical report. J. Prosthet. Dent. 1991, 66, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Marchack, B.W.; Chen, L.B.; Marchack, C.B.; Futatsuki, Y. Fabrication of an all-ceramic abutment crown under an existing removable partial denture using CAD/CAM technology. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2007, 98, 478–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Minervini, G.; Cervino, G.; Chaturvedi, S.; Franco, R.; di Francesco, F.; Fiorillo, L.; Cicciù, M. Advanced method of rehabilitating edentulous Jaws: A review on telescopic denture. Technol. Health Care 2023, 3, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lee, H.; Shirakura, A. A technique to fabricate a cast metal crown for an existing removable partial denture using an acrylic resin template. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2007, 97, 181–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Carracho, J.F.; Razzoog, M.E. Removable partial denture abutments restored with all-ceramic surveyed crowns. Quintessence Int. 2006, 37, 283–288. Available online: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16594359/ (accessed on 29 January 2023). [PubMed]
  18. Sailer, I.; Pjetursson, B.E.; Zwahlen, M.; Hämmerle, C.H.F. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of all-ceramic and metal-ceramic reconstructions after an observation period of at least 3 years. Part II: Fixed dental prostheses. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2007, 18, 86–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Pjetursson, B.E.; Sailer, I.; Zwahlen, M.; Hämmerle, C.H.F. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of all-ceramic and metal-ceramic reconstructions after an observation period of at least 3 years. Part I: Single crowns. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2007, 18, 73–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Alshehri, S.A. An Investigation into the Role of Core Porcelain Thickness and Lamination in Determining the Flexural Strength of In-Ceram Dental Materials. J. Prosthodont. 2011, 20, 261–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sorrentino, R.; De Simone, G.; Tetè, S.; Russo, S.; Zarone, F. Five-year prospective clinical study of posterior three-unit zirconia-based fixed dental prostheses. Clin. Oral Investig 2012, 16, 977–985. Available online: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00784-011-0575-2 (accessed on 31 January 2023). [CrossRef]
  22. Wang, X.; Fan, D.; Vincent Swain, M.; Zhao, K. A systematic review of all-ceramic crowns: Clinical fracture rates in relation to restored tooth type. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2012, 25, 441–450. Available online: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22930765/ (accessed on 31 January 2023).
  23. Rathi, S.; Chaturvedi, S.; Abdullah, S.; Rajput, G.; Alqahtani, N.M.; Chaturvedi, M.; Gurumurthy, V.; Saini, R.; Bavabeedu, S.S.; Minervini, G. Clinical Trial to Assess Physiology and Activity of Masticatory Muscles of Complete Denture Wearer Following Vitamin D Intervention. Medicina 2023, 59, 410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Sornsuwan, T.; Swain, M.V. Influence of occlusal geometry on ceramic crown fracture; role of cusp angle and fissure radius. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2011, 4, 1057–1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Rekow, E.D.; Harsono, M.; Janal, M.; Thompson, V.P.; Zhang, G. Factorial analysis of variables influencing stress in all-ceramic crowns. Dent. Mater. 2006, 22, 125–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Land, M.F.; Hopp, C.D. Survival Rates of All-Ceramic Systems Differ by Clinical Indication and Fabrication Method. J. Evid. Based Dent. Pract. 2010, 10, 37–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Nishigawa, K.; Bando, E.; Nakano, M. Quantitative study of bite force during sleep associated bruxism. J. Oral Rehabil. 2001, 28, 485–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Varga, S.; Spalj, S.; Lapter Varga, M.; Anic Milosevic, S.; Mestrovic, S.; Slaj, M. Maximum voluntary molar bite force in subjects with normal occlusion. Eur. J. Orthod. 2011, 33, 427–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Braun, S.; Hnat, W.P.; Freudenthaler, J.W.; Marcotte, M.R.; Hönigle, K.; Johnson, B.E. A study of maximum bite force during growth and development. Angle Orthod. 1996, 66, 261–264. [Google Scholar]
  30. Helkimo, E.; Carlsson, G.E.; Helkimo, M. Chewing efficiency and state of dentition. Acta Odontol Scand 1978, 36, 33–41. Available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/00016357809026364 (accessed on 29 January 2023). [CrossRef]
  31. Miyaura, K.; Morita, M.; Matsuka, Y.; Yamashita, A.; Watanabe, T. Rehabilitation of biting abilities in patients with different types of dental prostheses. J. Oral Rehabil. 2000, 27, 1073–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Rao, S.; Chowdhary, R. Comparison of Fracture Toughness of All-Ceramic and Metal–Ceramic Cement Retained Implant Crowns: An In Vitro Study. J. Indian Prosthodont. Soc. 2014, 14, 408–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lundgren, D.; Laurell, L. Occlusal force pattern during chewing and biting in dentitions restored with fixed bridges of cross-arch extension. J. Oral Rehabil. 1986, 13, 191–203. Available online: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1986.tb00651.x (accessed on 31 January 2023). [CrossRef]
  34. Jang, G.W.; Kim, H.S.; Choe, H.C.; Son, M.K. Fracture Strength and Mechanism of Dental Ceramic Crown with Zirconia Thickness. Procedia Eng. 2011, 10, 1556–1560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Cicciù, M.; Fiorillo, L.; D’Amico, C.; Gambino, D.; Amantia, E.M.; Laino, L.; Crimi, S.; Campagna, P.; Bianchi, A.; Herford, A.S.; et al. 3D digital impression systems compared with traditional techniques in dentistry: A recent data systematic review. Materials 2020, 13, 1982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Skouridou, N.; Pollington, S.; Rosentritt, M.; Tsitrou, E. Fracture strength of minimally prepared all-ceramic CEREC crowns after simulating 5 years of service. Dent. Mater. 2013, 29, e70–e77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Vaddamanu, S.K.; Alhamoudi, F.H.; Chaturvedi, S.; Alqahtani, N.M.; Addas, M.K.; Alfarsi, M.A.; Vyas, R.; Kanji, M.A.; Zarbah, M.A.; Alqahtani, W.M.; et al. Retentive Forces and Deformation of Fitting Surface in RPD Clasp Made of Polyether-Ether-Ketone (PEEK). Polymers 2023, 15, 956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Nordahl, N.; von Steyern, P.V.; Larsson, C. Fracture strength of ceramic monolithic crown systems of different thickness. J. Oral Sci. 2015, 57, 255–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Goodacre, B.J.; Goodacre, C.J.; Baba, N.Z.; Kattadiyil, M.T. Comparison of denture base adaptation between CAD-CAM and conventional fabrication techniques. J. Prosthet Dent. 2016, 116, 249–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Sato, Y.; Shindoi, N.; Koretake, K.; Hosokawa, R. The effect of occlusal rest size and shape on yield strength. J. Prosthet Dent. 2003, 89, 503–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Gapido, C.G.; Kobayashi, H.; Miyakawa, O.; Kohno, S. Fatigue resistance of cast occlusal rests using Co-Cr and Ag-Pd-Cu-Au alloys. J. Prosthet Dent. 2003, 90, 261–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wu, J.C.; Latta, G.H.; Wicks, R.A.; Swords, R.L.; Scarbecz, M. In vitro deformation of acetyl resin and metal alloy removable partial denture direct retainers. J. Prosthet Dent. 2003, 90, 586–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Swain, M.V. Unstable cracking (chipping) of veneering porcelain on all-ceramic dental crowns and fixed partial dentures. Acta Biomater. 2009, 5, 1668–1677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Di Francesco, F.; Lanza, A.; Di Blasio, M.; Vaienti, B.; Cafferata, E.A.; Cervino, G.; Cicciù, M.; Minervini, G. Application of Botulinum Toxin in Temporomandibular Disorders: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs). Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 12409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Minervini, G.; D’Amico, C.; Cicciù, M.; Fiorillo, L. Temporomandibular Joint Disk Displacement: Etiology, Diagnosis, Imaging, and Therapeutic Approaches. J. Craniofac. Surg 2022. Nov 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Minervini, G.; Mariani, P.; Fiorillo, L.; Cervino, G.; Cicciù, M.; Laino, L. Prevalence of temporomandibular disorders in people with multiple sclerosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cranio 2022, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Qazi, N.; Pawar, M.; Padhly, P.P.; Pawar, V.; Mehta, V.; D’Amico, C.; Nicita, F.; Fiorillo, L.; Alushi, A.; Minervini, G.; et al. Teledentistry: Evaluation of Instagram posts related to Bruxism. Technol. Health Care 2023, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Crescente, G.; Minervini, G.; Spagnuolo, C.; Moccia, S. Cannabis Bioactive Compound-Based Formulations: New Perspectives for the Management of Orofacial Pain. Molecules 2022, 28, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. della Bona, A.; Kelly, J.R. The Clinical Success of All-Ceramic Restorations. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2008, 139 (Suppl. S9), S8–S13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Burke, F.J.; Fleming, G.J.; Nathanson, D.; Marquis, P.M. Are adhesive technologies needed to support ceramics? An assessment of the current evidence. J. Adhes Dent. 2002, 4, 7–22. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. The selected model case for the study.
Figure 1. The selected model case for the study.
Biomimetics 08 00113 g001
Figure 2. The model targeted area for the study.
Figure 2. The model targeted area for the study.
Biomimetics 08 00113 g002
Figure 3. The created space between the saddle and alveolar ridge is 3 mm.
Figure 3. The created space between the saddle and alveolar ridge is 3 mm.
Biomimetics 08 00113 g003
Figure 4. The final design of the sample.
Figure 4. The final design of the sample.
Biomimetics 08 00113 g004
Figure 5. The mean and standard deviation of fracture strength of RPD (Co-Cr alloy) used with all-ceramic crowns (IPS e.max Press and zirconia materials).
Figure 5. The mean and standard deviation of fracture strength of RPD (Co-Cr alloy) used with all-ceramic crowns (IPS e.max Press and zirconia materials).
Biomimetics 08 00113 g005
Figure 6. Maximum deflection with maximum load applied to zirconia crowns with RPD framework.
Figure 6. Maximum deflection with maximum load applied to zirconia crowns with RPD framework.
Biomimetics 08 00113 g006
Figure 7. Maximum deflection with maximum load applied to IPS e-max Press crowns with RPD framework.
Figure 7. Maximum deflection with maximum load applied to IPS e-max Press crowns with RPD framework.
Biomimetics 08 00113 g007
Figure 8. The mean fracture strength of zirconia crowns from the previous research [34] was significantly higher than that of RPD saddles with zirconia crowns in this study (p ≤ 0.05).
Figure 8. The mean fracture strength of zirconia crowns from the previous research [34] was significantly higher than that of RPD saddles with zirconia crowns in this study (p ≤ 0.05).
Biomimetics 08 00113 g008
Figure 9. The mean fracture strength of IPS e.max Press crowns from the previous research [32] was significantly higher than that of RPD saddles with IPS e.max Press crowns in this study (p ≤ 0.05).
Figure 9. The mean fracture strength of IPS e.max Press crowns from the previous research [32] was significantly higher than that of RPD saddles with IPS e.max Press crowns in this study (p ≤ 0.05).
Biomimetics 08 00113 g009
Figure 10. Sample after loading was applied.
Figure 10. Sample after loading was applied.
Biomimetics 08 00113 g010
Figure 11. IPS e.max crowns with unfitted occlusal rest of RPD on the prepared area, space between occlusal rest and crown.
Figure 11. IPS e.max crowns with unfitted occlusal rest of RPD on the prepared area, space between occlusal rest and crown.
Biomimetics 08 00113 g011
Table 1. The samples quantity, materials and types.
Table 1. The samples quantity, materials and types.
ItemType of MaterialQuantity
modelsModel resin20
crowns30 zirconia20
crowns30 IPS e.max Press20
RPD frameworksChrome-cobalt alloy20
Table 2. The recorded values, mean and standard deviation of fracture strength of RPD (Co-Cr alloy) used with all-ceramic crowns (IPS e.max Press and zirconia materials).
Table 2. The recorded values, mean and standard deviation of fracture strength of RPD (Co-Cr alloy) used with all-ceramic crowns (IPS e.max Press and zirconia materials).
Sample NoRPD with ZirconiaRPD with IPS e.max Press
1335 N284 N
2305 N273 N
3386 N244 N
4313 N346 N
5400 N374 N
6367 N323 N
7376 N174 N
8206 N203 N
9312 N293 N
10304 N303 N
mean320 N281 N
Standard deviation±21 N±19 N
Table 3. The mean fracture strength of zirconia crowns from the previous research [34] was significantly higher than that of RPD saddles with zirconia crowns in this study (p ≤ 0.05).
Table 3. The mean fracture strength of zirconia crowns from the previous research [34] was significantly higher than that of RPD saddles with zirconia crowns in this study (p ≤ 0.05).
Sample NoZirconiaRPD with Zirconia
13020 N335 N
22949 N305 N
33405 N386 N
43353 N313 N
53275 N400 N
63277 N367 N
72248 N376 N
82402 N206 N
92427 N312 N
103184 N304 N
mean2954 N320 N
Standard deviation±320 N±21 N
Table 4. The mean fracture strength of IPS e.max Press crowns from the previous research [32] was significantly higher than that of RPD saddles with IPS e.max Press crowns in this study (p ≤ 0.05).
Table 4. The mean fracture strength of IPS e.max Press crowns from the previous research [32] was significantly higher than that of RPD saddles with IPS e.max Press crowns in this study (p ≤ 0.05).
Sample NoIPS e.max Press RPD with IPS e.max Press
11593 N284 N
22080 N273 N
31378 N244 N
41350 N346 N
5730 N374 N
62265 N323 N
7955 N174 N
81295 N203 N
91123 N293 N
101788 N303 N
mean1456 N281 N
Standard deviation±153 N±19 N
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Alhamoudi, F.H.; Aldosari, L.I.N.; Alshadidi, A.A.F.; Hassan, S.A.B.; Alwadi, M.A.M.; Vaddamanu, S.K.; Cicciù, M.; Minervini, G. An Investigation of the Fracture Loads Involved in the Framework of Removable Partial Dentures Using Two Types of All-Ceramic Restorations. Biomimetics 2023, 8, 113. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics8010113

AMA Style

Alhamoudi FH, Aldosari LIN, Alshadidi AAF, Hassan SAB, Alwadi MAM, Vaddamanu SK, Cicciù M, Minervini G. An Investigation of the Fracture Loads Involved in the Framework of Removable Partial Dentures Using Two Types of All-Ceramic Restorations. Biomimetics. 2023; 8(1):113. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics8010113

Chicago/Turabian Style

Alhamoudi, Fahad Hussain, Lujain Ibrahim N. Aldosari, Abdulkhaliq Ali F. Alshadidi, Saeed Awod Bin Hassan, Maram Ali M. Alwadi, Sunil Kumar Vaddamanu, Marco Cicciù, and Giuseppe Minervini. 2023. "An Investigation of the Fracture Loads Involved in the Framework of Removable Partial Dentures Using Two Types of All-Ceramic Restorations" Biomimetics 8, no. 1: 113. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics8010113

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop