Influence of different catilever extensions and glass or polyamaramid reinforcement fibers on fracture strength of implant-supported temporary

ORIGINAL ARTICLES

Influence of different catilever extensions and glass or polyamaramid reinforcement fibers on fracture strength of implant-supported temporary

Paola Colán Guzmán^I; Fernando Furtado Antunes de Freitas^I; Paulo Martins Ferreira^II; César Antunes de Freitas^III; Kátia Rodrigues Reis^I

^IDDS, MSc, Graduate student, Department of Prosthodontics, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Bauru, SP, Brazil

^IIDDS, MSc, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Bauru, SP, Brazil

^IIIDDS, MSc, PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of Operative Dentistry, Endodontics and Dental Materials, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Bauru, SP, Brazil

^{Corresponding address}

ABSTRACT

In long-term oral rehabilitation treatments, resistance of provisional crowns is a very important factor, especially in cases of an extensive edentulous distal space. The aim of this laboratorial study was to evaluate an acrylic resin cantilever-type prosthesis regarding the flexural strength of its in-balance portion as a function of its extension variation and reinforcement by two types of fibers (glass and polyaramid), considering that literature is not conclusive on this subject. Each specimen was composed by 3 total crowns at its mesial portion, each one attached to an implant component (abutment), while the distal portion (cantilever) had two crowns. Each specimen was constructed by injecting acrylic resin into a two-part silicone matrix placed on a metallic base. In each specimen, the crowns were fabricated with either acrylic resin (control group) or acrylic resin reinforced by glass (Fibrante, Angelus) or polyaramide (Kevlar 49, Du Pont) fibers. Compression load was applied on the cantilever, in a point located 7, 14 or 21 mm from the distal surface of the nearest crown with abutment, to simulate different extensions. The specimen was fixed on the metallic base and the force was applied until fracture in a universal test machine. Each one of the 9 sub-groups was composed by 10 specimens. Flexural strength means (in kgf) for the distances of 7, 14 and 21 mm were, respectively, 28.07, 8.27 and 6.39 for control group, 31.89, 9.18 and 5.16 for Kevlar 49 and 30.90, 9.31 and 6.86 for Fibrante. Data analysis ANOVA showed statistically significant difference (p<0.05) only regarding cantilever extension. Tukey's test detected significantly higher flexural strength for the 7 mm-distance, followed by 14 and 21 mm. Fracture was complete only on specimens of non-reinforced groups.

Key words: Acrylic resins. Glass fiber. Polyaramide. Temporary dental restoration. Provisional prosthesis. Cantilever. Flexural strength.

INTRODUCTION

During rehabilitation procedures, temporary prostheses are extremely important because they act as prototypes that promote, among other aspects, an adequate conditioning of the adjacent tissues.

There are some cases involving osseointegrated implants where it is necessary, due to financial reasons or existence of little bone tissue, to construct the dental prosthesis with a distal extension denominated cantilever, which is a type of balancing beam. In these cases, it is frequent the occurrence of fractures located between the most distal implant and the cantilever²².

Routinely used to fabricate temporary prosthesis, polymethyl methacrylate-based resin (PMMA) presents low resistance under occlusal loads. For this reason, there are various proposals to reinforce this material, such as inclusion of steel wires^5,19, silica²¹ or carbon fibers^15,19, polyaramid^1,6,15,19, poly(ethylene)^12,17, glass^{6,7,8,15,18,19} , aluminum² and Nylon⁶, or even orthodontic bands⁵, in order to increase either its flexural strength or module of elasticity, thus conferring a greater resistance to fracture.⁴

The aim at this laboratorial study was to evaluate the flexural strength to fracture of acrylic resin specimens simulating temporary prostheses with different cantilever lengths (7, 14 or 21 mm), which were reinforced by glass or polyaramid fibers. Fracture pattern was also analyzed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The whole laboratorial phase was carried out in a room with temperature of 23±2ºC and air relative humidity of 50±10%.

A stainless steel base (Figure 1) was used both for specimen fabrication and for further testing. Initially, a kit named prosthetic component was mounted with implant pieces (Neodent, Curitiba, PR, Brazil) consisting of a titanium abutment or UCLA type pillar (4.1 mm in diameter; 10.0 height) fixed over its analogous brass implant (same dimensions) with the proper screw. A two-part silicone matrix (lower and upper compartments) was especially constructed to produce specimens that simulated the shape of 5 joined teeth, namely one canine, three premolars and one molar.

To obtain each specimen, three prosthetic components were fixed (with lateral screws) on the metallic base (one in each orifice of the upper surface) over which the lower portion of the silicone matrix was placed (Figure 2). A 32 N/cm torque load was applied to each implant screw, with a Neodent manual torque wrench.

The upper portion of the matrix was placed over its lower half and, as illustrated in Figure 3A, a fluid mass of Dencôr acrylic resin (Artigos Odontológicos Clássico Ltda., São Paulo, SP, Brazil) prepared with 2.7 mL of monomer and 6.4 g of powder was injected through its main orifice. Injection was done until small amounts of excess material appeared at the escape orifices. At this moment, a glass lamina was placed over the matrix and a 500 g load was applied. This set was immediately immersed in a plastic container with water and placed in a stove regulated at 37ºC, during 10 min to promote polymerization. Resin appearance before removal of excesses is shown in Figure 3B, after withdrawing the upper portion of matrix. The specimen was removed from the base, immersed in water and stored under the same temperature during 15 days. Thereafter, resin excesses were trimmed and the specimen was polished until achieving the appearance presented in Figure 4A (lateral view) and Figure 4B (occlusal view). A total of 30 specimens were fabricated, which constituted the control group.

For reinforced specimens, the same procedures described above were performed, but inserting either glass fibers (Fibrante; Angelus Indústria de Produtos Odontológicos Ltda., Londrina, PR, Brazil) or polyaramid fibers (Kevlar 49; E. I. Du Pont of Nemours and Co., Wilmington, DE, USA) in the acrylic resin mass. For both materials, an original fiber bundle with a mass of 0.08 g and approximately 50 mm long was immersed in Dencôr liquid for 5 min. Then, the mass was divided in two equal parts and dried with absorbent paper. One first half was placed inside the lower matrix portion, contouring the abutments and extending up to its distal end. This procedure was repeated with the other half, crossing the first half at inter-pillar spaces. A cyanoacrylate-based adhesive (SuperBonder, Loctite-Henkel Ltda., São Paulo, SP, Brazil) was used to fix one half to the other, thus maintaining the aspect illustrated in Figure 5A (upper view). This bundle was located 2 mm below the top of the abutments, as shown in Figure 5B (lateral view). The aforementioned procedures for the control group (from resin injection to polishing) were undertaken, totalizing 30 specimens per fiber group.

Each specimen was considered ready for testing only when an imaginary transversal section at the interproximal regions of all teeth was 5.0±0.1 mm high and 5.5±0.1 mm wide, as measured with a Starrett 727 digital pachymeter.

It is important point out that Kevlar 49 is originally a tissue used for making clothes, wich was undone in order to obtain fiber bundles with similar dimensions of Fibrante ones.

The specimens were tested by fixing them initially on the metallic base and reapplying the 32 N/cm torque load to each implant screw. This device was then fixed at the table of a universal testing machine (Kratos-Dinamômetros Ltda., São Paulo, SP, Brazil) fitted with a 500 kgf load cell, set to exert a pre-load of 0.060 kgf and then develop a constant speed of 1.0 mm/min, until specimen fracture.

Each group of 30 specimens was divided into 3 sub-groups (n=10). In the specimens of first sub-group, the load was applied on the oclusal surface of the first cantilever tooth, on its distal fossa, that is, 7 mm distant from the nearest implant. In the specimens of second sub-group, the load was applied on the oclusal surface of the second cantilever tooth, on its central fossa, that is, 14 mm distant from the nearest implant. In the specimens of third sub-group, the load was applied on the oclusal surface of the second cantilever tooth, on its distal fossa, that is, 21 mm distant from the nearest implant. These points are circled in Figure 6A (oclusal view). The load was applied on each point by means of the rounded tip of a stainless steel pin with 8.0 mm in diameter (Figure 6B, in a lateral view). Fracture strength of each specimen was recorded and data were analyzed statistically by ANOVA and Tukey's test at 5% significance level.

RESULTS

Results (in kgf) for each specimen of each studied sub-group are presented in Table 1.

DISCUSSION

Some authors^{3,6-9,15,16,18} have reported that glass and polyaramid fibers promote an increase in flexural strength of PMMA resin specimens. Unlike these findings, the present results found no statistically significant difference between reinforced and non-reinforced specimens, which is in agreement with those of other authors^5,12,14.

The type of treatment applied to the reinforcing fiber immediately before its inclusion in PMMA is a relevant variable. Immersion of these fibers in MMA monomer (liquid) is seen, by some authors, as the cause of air bubble formation at the fiber-resin interface. The use of a fluid resin mass composed of a mixture of PMMA and MMA, has been proposed, instead of fiber immersion in MMA monomer²⁰. However, other studies have pointed out that the increase of the amount of MMA monomer around the fibers, before its incorporation into PMMA resin, seemed to contribute to its better wettability and less incorporation of air bubbles¹⁶. On the other hand, the use of a PMMA-MMA fluid mass would not promote an adequate impregnation of the fibers by the PMMA resin²¹. Because of these disagreements, in the present study, both fibers were immersed in MMA monomer, as several authors^12,16,17 have reported that this method enhances the adhesive resistance between resin and reinforcement fibers.

Any specimen prepared under the same conditions as those of the present study, when subjected to a compression load applied on cantilever distal extreme, suffers traction throughout the full extension of its occlusal surface, which indicates that the best location of the fiber is as higher as possible^10,17.

The specimens of all groups presented higher fracture strength values with the 7mm cantilever than that with 14- and 21-mm long cantilevers. Different suggestions are found in the literature with regard to cantilever behavior, but most authors agree that, in cases with adequate osseous quality, an extension of 10 or 20 mm is acceptable^11,13,22. The longer the cantilever, the greater the stress on its mesial end. From a clinical point of view, other factors must be taken consideration, such as patient biotype and parafunctional signs, since they impart strong influence on this aspect¹¹.

Basically, the objective of reinforcement has always been to restrain or avoid crack propagation. The testing machine stops force exertion immediately when crack formation begins, when an abrupt drop of resistance occurs. In spite of this fact, both fragments of a reinforced specimen almost never suffer a complete separation from each other. This is an important clinical aspect, as it might hinder patient swallowing. Similar results to those of the present study have been described by other authors, who found no significant difference in fracture resistance between specimens with or without reinforcement. Several authors have reported that the fibers generally kept both fragments together and that, under clinical conditions, there was a reduction of the risk of losing part of the temporary denture, which implies that the restoration procedure would consume less time^1,5,12.

Reinforcing a temporary prosthesis with fibers, as done hereby, is a relatively simple and very beneficial task with benefits mentioned by several researchers. Although the behavior of both fibers here analyzed was very similar, Fibrante seems to present some advantages, such as the fact of being transparent, which allows using this fiber in anterior teeth as well, where esthetics is an important factor. Moreover, it is more easily found in the Brazilian market at a lower cost than that of Kevlar.

CONCLUSIONS

Under the tested conditions, it may be concluded that: 1. The flexural strength of acrylic temporary dentures increased with the decrease of cantilever length; 2. It was not found significant difference between the groups with reinforcement (Kevlar 49 and Fibrante) and the control group; and 3. A fracture pattern was observed, always as non-separated fragments in all specimens of the reinforced groups and as separated fragments in all specimens of the control group.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Authors would like to thank Angelus and Neodent, respectively, for donation of glass fibers and prosthetic components.

REFERENCES

1- Berrong JM, Weed RM, Young JM. Fracture resistance of Kevlar-reinforced poly(methyl methacrylate) resin: a preliminary study. Int J Prosthodont. 1990;3:391-5.

2- Grant AA, Greener EH. Whisker reinforcement of polymethyl methacrylate denture base resins. Aust Dent J. 1967;12:29-33.

3- Hamza TA, Rosenstiel SF, Elhosary MM, Ibraheem R. The effect of fiber reinforcement on the fracture toughness and flexural strength of provisional restorative resins. J Prosthet Dent. 2004;91:258-64.

4- Hazelton DR, Diaz-Arnold AM, Vargas MA. Flexural strength of provisional crown and fixed partial denture resins. J Prosthet Dent. 2002;87:225-8.

5- Hazelton LR, Nicholls JI, Brudvik JS, Daly CH. Influence of reinforcement design on the loss of marginal fixed partial dentures. Int J Prosthodont. 1995;8:572-9.

6- John J, Gangadhar SA, Shah I. Flexural strength of heat-polymerized polymethyl methacrylate denture resin reinforced with glass, aramid, or nylon fibers. J Prosthet Dent. 2001;86:424-7.

7- Keyf F, Uzun G, Mutlu M. The effects of HEMA- monomer and air atmosphere treatment of glass fibre on the transverse strength of a provisional fixed partial denture resin. J Oral Rehabil. 2003;30:1142-8.

8- Kim SH, Watts DC. Effect of glass-fiber reinforcedment and water storage on fracture toughness (Kjc) of polymer-based provisional crown and FPD materials. Int J Prosthodont. 2004;17:318-22.

9- Narva KK, Lassila LV, Vallittu PK. The static strength and modulus of fiber reinforced denture base polymer. Dent Mater. 2005;21:421-8.

10- Nohrström TJ, Vallittu PK, Yli-Urpo A. The effect of placement and quantity of glass fibers on the fracture resistance on interim fixed partial dentures. Int J Prosthodont. 2000;13:72-8.

11- Rangert B, Jemt T, Jörneus L. Forces and Moments on Branemark implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1989;4:241-7.

12- Samadzadeh A, Kugel G, Hurley E, Aboushala A. Fracture strengths of provisional restorations reinforced with plasma-treated woven polyethylene fiber. J Prosthet Dent. 1997;78:447-50.

13- Sertgöz A, Güvener S. Finite element analysis of the effect of cantilever and implant length on stress distribution in an implant-supported fixed prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent. 1996;76:165-9.

14- Uzun G, Hersek N, Tinçer T. Effect of five woven fiber reinforcements on the impact and transverse strength of a denture base resin. J Prosthet Dent. 1999;81:616-20.

15- Vallittu PK. Comparison of two different silane compounds used for improving adhesion between fibres and acrylic denture base material. J Oral Rehabil. 1993;20:533-9.

16- Vallittu PK. The effect of void space and polymerization time on transverse strength of acrylic-glass fibre composite. J Oral Rehabil. 1995;22:257-61.

17- Vallittu PK. Ultra-high-modulus polyethylene ribbon as reinforcement for denture polymethyl methacrylate: a short communication. Dent Mater. 1997;13:381-2.

18- Vallittu PK. Flexural properties of acrylic resin polymers reinforced with unidirectional and woven glass fibers. J Prosthet Dent. 1999;81:318-26.

19- Vallittu PK, Lassila VP. Reinforcement of acrylic resin denture base material with metal or fibre strengtheners. J Oral Rehabil. 1992;19:225-30.

20- Vallittu PK, Lassila VP, Lappalainen R. Acrylic resin-fiber composite _ part I: the effect of fiber concentration on fracture resistance. J Prosthet Dent. 1994;71:607-12.

21- Vallittu PK, Ruyter IE, Ekstrand K. Effect of water storage on the flexural properties of e-glass and silica fiber acrylic resin composite. Int J Prosthodont. 1998;11:340-50.

22- Van Zyl PP, Grundling NL, Jooste CH, Terblanche E. Three-Dimensional finite element model of a human mandible incorporating six osseointegrated implants for stress analysis of mandibular cantilever prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995;10:51-7.

Received: April 2, 2007

Modification: October 17, 2007

Accepted: December 12, 2007

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  28 Apr 2008
• Date of issue
  Apr 2008

History

• Reviewed
  17 Oct 2007
• Received
  02 Apr 2007
• Accepted
  12 Dec 2007