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

• Autor(a) principal: Colán Guzmán, Paola
• Data de Publicação: 2008
• Outros Autores: Freitas, Fernando Furtado Antunes de, Ferreira, Paulo Martins, Freitas, César Antunes de, Reis, Kátia Rodrigues
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Journal of applied oral science (Online)
• Texto Completo: https://www.revistas.usp.br/jaos/article/view/3549
• topic: Acrylic resins; Glass fiber; Polyaramide; Temporary dental restoration; Provisional prosthesis; Cantilever; Flexural strength

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