ArticleClinical oral investigations2023
Biomechanical behavior of posterior metal-free cantilever fixed dental prostheses: effect of material and retainer design.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative finite element analysis of 3-unit implant-supported bridges restorated with different prosthetic materials in posterior mandible.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Biomechanics of Tooth-Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses: Material Systems, Connector Design, Retainer Design, and Abutment Stress Distribution-A Systematic Review of In Vitro and Finite Element Evidence.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- In silico analysis of stress distribution in ultra-translucent multilayered zirconia veneers of varying thickness and yttria content using Finite Element Analysis (FEA).BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Assessment of Stress Distribution Around Traditional and Sleeve Fixed Partial Denture Designs: Finite Element Analysis.European journal of dentistry · 2025Article
- Zirconia single retainer fixed dental prostheses for the posterior region-A novel preparation technique and literature review.Clinical case reports · 2024Article
- Aesthetical and Functional Rehabilitation for an Ankylosed Maxillary Canine-A Case Report.Clinics and practice · 2024Article
- Marginal fit and retention force of zirconia resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses in the posterior region with different designs.Journal of dental sciences · 2024Article
- The effect of restorative material selection and cementation procedures on the durability of endocrowns in the anterior teeth: an in-vitro study.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- The Use of Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) as an Alternative Post and Core Material: Five-Year Follow-Up Report.Dentistry journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo study the fracture resistance and stress distribution pattern of translucent zirconia and fiber-reinforced composite cantilever resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses (RPFDPs) with two retainer designs. MATERIALS AND
methodsForty human mandibular molars were divided into two groups according to the retainer design. The restorations included a premolar pontic and 2 retainer designs: (D1) inlay ring retainer and (D2) lingual coverage retainer. Each main group was then divided according to the material used (n = 10): zirconia (Z) or fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) (F). Restorations were cemented using dual polymerizing adhesive luting resin. All specimens were thermo-cycled (5-55 °C for 10,000 cycles), then subjected to dynamic loading (50 N, 240,000, and 1.6 Hz) and fracture resistance test. The finite element analysis includes the two models of retainer designs used in the in vitro test. Modified von Mises stress values on enamel, dentin, luting resin, and restorations were examined when the restorations failed.
resultsA significantly higher failure load was recorded for zirconia groups (505.00 ± 61.50 and 548.00 ± 75.63 N for D1Z and D2Z, respectively) than for FRC groups (345.00 ± 42.33 and 375.10 ± 53.62 N for D1F and D2F, respectively) (P = 0.001). With regard to failure mode, D2 showed a more favorable failure pattern than D1. Model D2 resulted in lower stresses in tooth structure than model D1, and zirconia transmitted more stresses to the tooth structure than FRC.
conclusionsThe lingual coverage retainer (D2) enhanced the biomechanical performance of the restoration/tooth complex. Considering the failure mode and tooth stress, FRC is a promising treatment option when constructing a cantilever RPFDP. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Dentists should be aware of the biomechanical behavior during the selection of the material and for the replacement of a single missing mandibular premolar tooth with minimally invasive RBFDP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.