Martin Rosentritt1, Felix Heidtkamp1, Helmut Hösl2, Sebastian Hahnel1, Verena Preis3. 1. Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, University Medical Center Regensburg, 93042, Regensburg, Germany. 2. Department of Orthodontics, University Medical Center Regensburg, 93042, Regensburg, Germany. 3. Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, University Medical Center Regensburg, 93042, Regensburg, Germany. verena.preis@ukr.de.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Removable dentures with different denture teeth may provide different performance and resistance in implant and gingival situations, or anterior and posterior applications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two situations of removable dentures were investigated: gingiva (flexible) and implant (rigid) bearing. For simulating the gingiva/jaw situation, the dentures were supported with flexible lining material. For the implant situation, implants (d = 4.1 mm) were screwed into polymethylenmethacrylate (PMMA) resin. Two commercial (Vita-Physiodens MRP, SR Vivodent/Orthotyp DCL) and two experimental materials (EXP1, EXP2) were investigated in anterior (A) and posterior (P) tooth locations. Chewing simulation was performed, and failures were analyzed (microscopy, SEM). Fracture strength of surviving dentures was determined. RESULTS: Only EXP1 revealed failures during chewing simulation. Failures varied between anterior and posterior locations, and between implant (P:4x; A:7x) or gingiva (P:1x; A:2x) situations. Kaplan-Meier log-rank test revealed significant differences for implant situations (p < 0.002), but not for gingiva bearing (p > 0.093). Fracture testing in the implant situation provided significantly highest values for EXP2 (1476.4 ± 532.2 N) in posterior location, and for DCL (1575.4 ± 264.4 N) and EXP2 (1797.0 ± 604.2 N) in anterior location. For gingival bearing, significantly highest values were found for DCL/P (2148.3 ± 836.3 N), and significantly lowest results for EXP1/A (308.2 ± 115.6 N). For EXP1 + EXP2 + Vita/P and for EXP1/A no significant differences were found between implant- or gingiva-supported situations. CONCLUSIONS: Anterior and posterior teeth showed different material-dependent in vitro performance, further influenced by implant/gingiva bearing. While an implant in anterior application increased fracture strength of two materials, it decreased fracture values of 3/4 of the materials in posterior application. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Survival of denture teeth may be influenced by material, oral position, and bearing situation.
OBJECTIVES: Removable dentures with different denture teeth may provide different performance and resistance in implant and gingival situations, or anterior and posterior applications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two situations of removable dentures were investigated: gingiva (flexible) and implant (rigid) bearing. For simulating the gingiva/jaw situation, the dentures were supported with flexible lining material. For the implant situation, implants (d = 4.1 mm) were screwed into polymethylenmethacrylate (PMMA) resin. Two commercial (Vita-PhysiodensMRP, SR Vivodent/Orthotyp DCL) and two experimental materials (EXP1, EXP2) were investigated in anterior (A) and posterior (P) tooth locations. Chewing simulation was performed, and failures were analyzed (microscopy, SEM). Fracture strength of surviving dentures was determined. RESULTS: Only EXP1 revealed failures during chewing simulation. Failures varied between anterior and posterior locations, and between implant (P:4x; A:7x) or gingiva (P:1x; A:2x) situations. Kaplan-Meier log-rank test revealed significant differences for implant situations (p < 0.002), but not for gingiva bearing (p > 0.093). Fracture testing in the implant situation provided significantly highest values for EXP2 (1476.4 ± 532.2 N) in posterior location, and for DCL (1575.4 ± 264.4 N) and EXP2 (1797.0 ± 604.2 N) in anterior location. For gingival bearing, significantly highest values were found for DCL/P (2148.3 ± 836.3 N), and significantly lowest results for EXP1/A (308.2 ± 115.6 N). For EXP1 + EXP2 + Vita/P and for EXP1/A no significant differences were found between implant- or gingiva-supported situations. CONCLUSIONS: Anterior and posterior teeth showed different material-dependent in vitro performance, further influenced by implant/gingiva bearing. While an implant in anterior application increased fracture strength of two materials, it decreased fracture values of 3/4 of the materials in posterior application. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Survival of denture teeth may be influenced by material, oral position, and bearing situation.