In vitro investigation of the performance of different restorative materials under cast circumferential clasps for removable dental prostheses

Abstract

The use of composites as direct restoration materials should be avoided in teeth, which serve as abutments for clasp-retained RDPs.

Das Teflonband – ein Problemlöser für schwierige klinische Situationen!

“…Da- Über das Legen einer Kompositrestauration im Bereich von Klammerauflagen ist in der Vergangenheit oft kontrovers diskutiert worden. Als Argumentationsgrundlage gegen Kompositrestaurationen in solchen Bereichen wird in der Regel eine im Jahr 2012 von Pospiech et al [25] publizierte In-vitro-Studie herangezogen. In dieser Studie konnte nachgewiesen werden, dass Kompositrestaurationen im Bereich von Klammerauflagen weniger resistent gegen Frakturen sind als Amalgamrestaurationen.…”

Fatigue behavior of removable partial denture cast and laser‐sintered cobalt‐chromium (CoCr) and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) clasp materials

“…Since the 1950s, the introduction of cast clasp-retained removable partial dentures (RPDs) has been well established as a treatment option to restore function and aesthetics for patients (Pospiech et al, 2012).…”

“…Traditional methods of casting removable partial denture frameworks are well established; however, there are challenges with manual castings that can result in potential inaccuracy, which can impact the properties of the material (Pospiech et al, 2012). An advantage that computer-aided design and additive manufacturing protocols can offer is that to a large degree, they overcome the disadvantages that casting alloys tend to incur.…”

“…The other disadvantage of traditional chrome castings is the poor aesthetics due to their metallic color and as a result, resin-based polymer materials have come onto the market in an attempt to provide a more aesthetic material. However, it has been suggested that resin-based polymer material's inherent mechanical properties mean that to achieve sufficient retention, a clasping unit needs to be bulkier than a metal clasping unit (Akl & Stendahl, 2022;Pospiech et al, 2012;Vermeulen et al, 1996;Zhao & Wang, 2014). From a biomechanical point of view, support and retention are key considerations to achieving a successful outcome.…”

“…Studies that used vertical insertion/removal methods normally involved a universal testing machine, which directed the clasp assembly to engage and disengage with the tooth in a continuous cyclic motion. A limitation of this method was that the stress applied to the various parts of the tapered clasps was not calculated/established before failure, nor was the effect of friction established (Cheng et al, 2010 ; El‐Baz et al, 2020 ; Peng et al, 2019 ; Rodrigues et al, 2002 ; Schweiger et al, 2020 ; Tannous et al, 2012 ; Tokue et al, 2013 ). The constant deflection testing methods used tapered specimens, (Cheng et al, 2010 ; El‐Baz et al, 2020 ; Iwama & Preston, 1997 ; Kajima et al, 2016 ; Mahmoud et al, 2005 ; Mahmoud, 2007 ; Peng et al, 2019 ; Rodrigues et al, 2002 ; Schweiger et al, 2020 ; Tannous et al, 2012 ; Tokue et al, 2013 ; Vallittu & Kokkonen, 1995 ) resulting in a nonuniformed cross‐section area making analysis of failure in terms of stress at the point of fracture difficult (Murakami et al, 2021 ).…”