Submitted: 01 Mar 2011
Accepted: 23 Feb 2013
ePublished: 23 Feb 2013
EndNote EndNote

(Enw Format - Win & Mac)

BibTeX BibTeX

(Bib Format - Win & Mac)

Bookends Bookends

(Ris Format - Mac only)

EasyBib EasyBib

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Medlars Medlars

(Txt Format - Win & Mac)

Mendeley Web Mendeley Web
Mendeley Mendeley

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Papers Papers

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

ProCite ProCite

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Reference Manager Reference Manager

(Ris Format - Win only)

Refworks Refworks

(Refworks Format - Win & Mac)

Zotero Zotero

(Ris Format - Firefox Plugin)

J Iran Dent Assoc. 2010;22(4): 233-239.
  Abstract View: 26

Research

Comparing the retention of two different designs of resin bonded restorations

Farshad Bajoghli, Saeid Nosouhian*, Mohammad Seyedmozafare
*Corresponding Author: Email: nosouhian@dnt.mui.ac.ir

Abstract

  Comparing the retention of two different designs of resin bonded restorations

  

  Dr. Bajoghli F .,1 Dr. Nosouhian S .,1 Dr. Seyedmozafare M .2

  1 Assistant Professor, Department of P rosthodontics , School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences. Isfahan , Iran. 2 Dentist.

 

  (Received 18 Feb, 2010 Accepted 24 Oct, 2010)

  Abstract

  

  Background and Aim : Prosthesis design has an important effect on its retention, especially in Resin Bonded Restorations (RBRs) in which preparation is conservative since there are different design possibilities to fabricate RBRs. The aim of this study was to compare the retention of RBRs with two different designs .

  Materials and Methods : In this experimental study, twenty-two RBRs were fabricated from twenty-two premolar and second molar teeth which had the same size and no carries. In the first group, conventional preparation which included lingual preparation, guiding planes, occlusal rests and two grooves in interproximal areas, was perfomed. In the second group, preparation included only class II inlay cavity preparation on the edentulous side. After frame work fabrication, the samples were cemented with resin cement (Panavia F), and subjected to tensile force. The force required to separate each sample was recorded and the results in the two groups were compared by t test.

  Results : Average retention in the group with conventional design was 39.523 ± 8.62 kgf and 25.715 ± 4.10 kgf in the group with modified design. The difference was shown significant by the statistical t test (P<0.001).

  Conclusion : Results indicate that the design with conventional preparation had a higher retention than the modified design that has only Class II intercoronal retainers.

  Key words : Dental Prosthesis Retention - Dental Prosthesis - Denture - Fixed - Resin-Bonded - Resin Cement - Tooth Preparation - Prosthodontic .

 

  Corresponding Author : Dr. Nosouhian S ., Assistant Professor, Department of P rosthodontics , School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences. Isfahan , Iran.

  e.mail: nosouhian@dnt.mui.ac.ir

 

First Name
Last Name
Email Address
Comments
Security code


Abstract View: 27

Your browser does not support the canvas element.


PDF Download: 0

Your browser does not support the canvas element.