A comparative study of the resistance to dislodgement of fixed prostheses using Bio-pin(R).
- Author:
Jong Won YI
1
;
In Ho CHO
;
Jong Hyuk LEE
;
Seung Ki KIM
Author Information
1. Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Dankook University, Korea. cho8511@dku.edu
- Publication Type:Comparative Study ; Original Article
- Keywords:
Conservative approach to preparing dental prostheses;
Bio-pin(R) bridge;
The dislodgement resistance
- MeSH:
Dental Cements;
Dental Prosthesis;
Prostheses and Implants*;
Prosthodontics;
Tooth
- From:The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
2005;43(2):176-190
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The current trend in prosthodontics is the adoption of a conservative approach to preparing dental prostheses by minimizing the amount of sound tooth structure removal during preparation. PURPOSE: The major disadvantage of the adhesion bridge is the inherently poor resistance to dislodgement that its use in areas subjected to high occlusal load is limited. The purpose of this study was to compare the dislodgement resistance of Bio-pin(R), conventional 3-unit and adhesion bridges. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The experimental groups were classified as follows: .Group I : 3-unit bridge cemented using Super-Bond. C&B .Group II : Adhesion bridge cemented using Super-Bond. C&B .Group III : Bio-pin(R) design adhesion bridge without incorporation of Bio-pin(R) (cemented using Super-Bond. C&B) .Group IV-1: Bio-pin(R) retained adhesion bridge incorporating a single Bio-pin(R) (cemented using Super-Bond. C&B) .Group IV-2: Bio-pin(R) retained adhesion bridge incorporating a single Bio-pin(R) (cemented using Panavia. F) .Group V : Bio-pin(R) retained adhesion bridge incorporating two Bio-pins. (cemented using Super-Bond. C&B) RESULTS: The results of this study were as follows: 1. Significant differences in dislodgement resistance of the restorations were found between Group I, Group II and Group III (p<0.05). No significant differences in dislodgement resistance of the restorations were observed between Group I, GroupIV-1 and GroupV. However, there were significant differences in dislodgement resistance between GroupII and the other groups (p<0.05). 2. No significant differences in dislodgement resistance of the restorations were observed between GroupIV-1 and GroupIV-2, both of which utilized a single Bio-pin(R). However, significant differences were observed when GroupIII was compared to either GroupIV-1 or GroupV (p<0.05). 3. No significant differences in dislodgement resistance relative to the type of dental cements used were found. CONCLUSION: From the above results, it is concluded that the dislodgement resistance of Biopin. bridge restorations utilizing a single Bio-pin(R) is similar to that of a conventional 3-unit bridge. The results also suggest that Bio-pin(R) bridge restorations using a single Bio-pin(R) are a viable alternative to the conventional 3-unit bridge when minimal removal of sound tooth structure and fulfillment of both function and esthetic aspects are considered.
