Premium
Load‐bearing capacity of direct four unit provisional composite bridges with fibre reinforcement
Author(s) -
EISENBURGER M.,
RIECHERS J.,
BORCHERS L.,
STIESCHSCHOLZ M.
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
journal of oral rehabilitation
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.991
H-Index - 93
eISSN - 1365-2842
pISSN - 0305-182X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2008.01855.x
Subject(s) - bearing capacity , materials science , reinforcement , composite material , composite number , load bearing , glass fiber , bearing (navigation) , structural engineering , computer science , engineering , artificial intelligence
Summary The aim of the current in vitro study was to evaluate the load‐bearing capacity of provisional four‐unit bridges with and without two different types of glass‐fibre reinforcement produced in a direct technique with a silicon template from the composite materials Protemp, Luxatemp and CronMix. From each composite material, 30 bridges were manufactured, 10 without fibre reinforcement, 10 with Stick/StickNet and 10 with everStick/everStickNet reinforcement. After artificial aging by thermocycling samples were cemented onto a master model and subjected to load testing in a universal testing machine. Mean force at fracture for the groups without fibre reinforcement varied from 486 to 612 N. Depending on the material combination, fibre reinforcement resulted in a slightly increased or a reduced mean load‐bearing capacity, varying from 674 N for the combination of Protemp and Stick to 262 N for CronMix and everStick. Position of fibres within the resin pontic was found to have an important influence on load‐bearing capacity of reinforced bridges. Scanning electron microscopic investigation showed good adhesion of everStick fibres to the pre‐impregnation resin whereas bonding of Stick fibres to the embedding polymer was incomplete. In conclusion, fibre reinforcement with Stick or everStick did not improve the load‐bearing capacity of direct provisional bridges made from Protemp, Luxatemp, or CronMix as the position of fibres could not be controlled during the direct manufacturing process. To increase the load‐bearing capacity of the provisional bridges, an exact positioning of fibres at the tension side in the dental laboratory is necessary.