Fracture strength of methacrylate resin based versus resin free composite restorations supporting occlusal rest of removable partial denture: In-Vitro Study | ||||
| Ain Shams Dental Journal | ||||
| Volume 34, Issue 2, June 2024, Page 120-133 PDF (2.07 MB) | ||||
| Document Type: Original articles | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/asdj.2024.289686.1281 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
Mona M. Aboelnagga   1, 2; Somaya Ali Saleh3, 4; Sawsan Maged Fadl 5
| ||||
| 1Professor of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt. | ||||
| 2Associate Professor of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Taibah University, Madinah, Saudi Arabia. | ||||
| 3Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt. | ||||
| 4Department of Restorative Dental Science, College of Dentistry, Taibah University, Madinah, Saudi Arabia. | ||||
| 5Lecturer at the department of Oral and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Aim: compare fracture strength of composite restorations (methacrylate resin-based, methacrylate free) restoring abutments having occlusal rest seat in them and applying vertical stresses through the rest. Materials and Methods: 28 extracted first maxillary premolars were used, class II cavities were prepared. According to composite restoration, specimens randomly into two equal groups; first group methacrylate resin-based composite Tetric N-ceram® while in second group Ormocer-based composite (methacrylate-free) Admira fusion®. Saucer rest seats were prepared, then samples were stored in distilled water for 2weeks and exposed to thermo-cycling. Metallic tool milled with dimensions of RPD rest was used in universal testing machine applying vertical load where fracture resistance test used. In-addition, site of fracture and fracture mode were inspected under optical light microscope. All records were tabulated and analyzed. Results: Results showed, Tetric N-ceram samples had higher strength values (1189.00±27 N) than those of Admira fusion (1012.40±25 N), yet difference wasn't statistically significant (p=0.06). There was equal distribution of fracture site in both groups, commonly mixed type (100%). While fracture mode, Tetric N-ceram group, 28.5% showed non-catastrophic mode and 57.1% in Admira fusion group. Besides, Tetric N-ceram showed 71.43% catastrophic mode while 42.86% in Admira fusion group. Conclusion: There was no significant difference in fracture resistances of resin composite restorative materials compared to resin free. Tetric N-Ceram and Admira can be considered suitable restorative material used under rests of RPDs and safely support them. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Rest seat; RPD; Composite; methacrylate free; Fracture mode | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 394 PDF Download: 349 |
||||
