Author
Listed:
- Marcela M. Penteado
- João P. M. Tribst
- Ana L. B. Jurema
- Guilherme S. F. A. Saavedra
- Alexandre L. S. Borges
Abstract
The mechanical properties of the adhesive cement used in resin-bonded fixed partial dentures (RBFPD) can modify the clinical performance of the rehabilitation. The goal of this study was to evaluate the influence of the elastic modulus of different cements on the stress distribution in RBFPD using finite element analysis. For that an anterior 3-unit prosthesis was modeled based in a stereolithography file. The model was meshed with tetrahedral elements and materials considered isotropic, linearly elastic and homogeneous. The force applied to the palatal area of the lateral incisor (pontic) at 45° was 100 N. The cements used presented 7 different elastic modulus (E): 2, 6, 10, 14, 18, 22 or 26 GPa. The total deformation, von-Mises stress and maximum principal stress criteria were used to calculate the results. The lower tensile stress occurred in the cement layer with E = 2 GPa [25.6 (canine) and 16.32 MPa (incisor)]. For the prosthesis, the model with the lower tensile stress [287 (canine) and 248 MPa (incisor)] occurred when the cement presented E = 26 GPa.In this way, the stress concentration may have its magnitude modified depending on the stiffness of the cement. Since more flexible cements concentrate less tensile stress in its structure, but allow an increased displacement of the prosthesis, which is friable and rigid and ends up concentrating more tensile stress at its connector. In that way the clinician should avoid the use of adhesive cement with lower elastic modulus due to it increases the stress concentration in the ceramic.
Suggested Citation
Marcela M. Penteado & João P. M. Tribst & Ana L. B. Jurema & Guilherme S. F. A. Saavedra & Alexandre L. S. Borges, 2019.
"Influence of resin cement rigidity on the stress distribution of resin-bonded fixed partial dentures,"
Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(10), pages 953-960, July.
Handle:
RePEc:taf:gcmbxx:v:22:y:2019:i:10:p:953-960
DOI: 10.1080/10255842.2019.1609456
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:gcmbxx:v:22:y:2019:i:10:p:953-960. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/gcmb .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.