A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Biomechanical behavior of adhesive cement layer and periodontal tissues on the restored teeth with zirconia RBFDPs using three-kinds of framework design: 3D FEA study. | LitMetric

Purpose: To investigate stress and strain concentrations on resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses (RBFDPs) frameworks of different design using finite element analysis.

Methods: A human dry skull was scanned and models were produced using three-dimensional printer. After abutment preparation, three frameworks, including a three-unit RBFDP, and two-unit cantilevered RBFDPs using #21 and #23 for the abutment tooth, were fabricated. Scanned data were subtracted to define boundary of each structure. Occlusal force (200N) was loaded at 45° to long axis of the pontic. The distributions of shear stress and principal strain in the RBFDP models were measured to evaluate the risk for framework-debonding from the abutment teeth and the impact on periodontal tissue.

Results: The percentage voxels with shear stress >11MPa in adhesive cement layer of three-unit RBFDP using #21 and #23 were 4.16% and 2.25%, respectively; in two-unit cantilevered RBFDPs, it was 19.25% using #21, and 23.4% using #23. The maximum principal strain on periodontal ligaments in two-unit cantilevered RBFDPs using #21 was the largest, and smallest in the three-unit RBFDP. The maximum principal strain in framework was largest in the two-unit cantilevered RBFDP using #23, and smallest in the three-unit RBFDP.

Conclusions: The risk for framework-debonding in three-unit RBFDPs was substantially lower than that in two-unit RBFDPs. In difficult cases with indication for three-unit RBFDPs, two-unit cantilever design using the canine would be more advantageous for preservation of periodontal tissue, while for risk of framework-debonding, the design using the central incisor would be more advantageous.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2017.10.001DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

two-unit cantilevered
16
three-unit rbfdp
12
cantilevered rbfdps
12
principal strain
12
risk framework-debonding
12
adhesive cement
8
cement layer
8
rbfdps
8
rbfdps #21
8
#21 #23
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!