Skip to main content
Download PDF

Effect of two esthetic digitally produced materials used in fabrication of extracoronal attachments on the stresses Induced in removable partial dentures

BMC Oral Health volume 24, Article number: 760 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Preservation of the remaining structures while maintaining an esthetic appearance is a major objective in removable partial prosthodontics. So, the aim of the current study was to compare the stresses induced on the supporting structures by two digitally produced esthetic core materials; Zirconia and Polyetheretherketone when used as an extracoronal attachment in distal extension removable partial dentures using strain gauge analysis.

Methods

A mandibular Kennedy class II stone cast with the necessary abutments’ preparations was scanned. The mandibular left canine and first premolar teeth were virtually removed. An acrylic mandibular left canine and first premolar teeth were prepared with heavy chamfer finish line and scanned. Virtual superimposition of the acrylic teeth in their corresponding positions was done. Two strain gauge slots were designed: distal to the terminal abutment and in the residual ridge. Two models and two sets of scanned teeth were digitally printed. The printed teeth were then placed in their corresponding sockets in each model and scanned. The attachment design was selected from the software library and milled out of Zirconia in the model ZR and Polyetheretherketone in the model PE. Five removable partial dentures were constructed for each model. The strain gauges were installed in their grooves. A Universal testing machine was used for unilateral load application of 100 N (N). For each removable partial denture, five measurements were made. The data followed normal distribution and were statistically analyzed by using unpaired t test. P value < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

Results

During unilateral loading unpaired t test showed statistically significant difference (p = 0.0001) in the microstrain values recorded distal to the abutment between the models ZR (-1001.6 µε ± 24.56) and PE (-682.6 µε ± 22.18). However, non statistically significant difference (p = 0.3122) was observed in the residual ridge between them; ZR (16.2 µε ± 4.53) and PE (15 µε ± 3.74).

Conclusions

In removable partial dentures, Polyetheretherketone extracoronal attachment induces less stress on the supporting abutments compared to the zirconia one with no difference in the stresses induced by them on the residual ridge.

Peer Review reports

Background

The increase in patients’ concerns about their appearance in the society has increased their desire for esthetic dental restorations. Such a desire not only challenges the dentists to provide functional care but they have to provide esthetic care as well [1]. Among such challenges is the non-esthetic display of the metal clasps in the conventional clasp retained removable partial denture whenever the patient smiles or speaks. To overcome such challenges, different approaches have been considered as providing lingual retention and veneering the metal clasp arm with acrylic or composite resins. However, frequent debonding and the high failure rate ended up in their limited applications [2]. Implant supported prosthesis may also offer a suitable esthetic solution yet, the placement of dental implants is not always a feasible option because of the anatomical, financial and psychological limitations [3, 4]. However, extracoronal attachments provide support and retention for removable partial dentures (RPDs) meanwhile providing esthetics as well [5,6,7]. They also provide a biomechanical advantage in long-span removable partial dentures [6, 7]. On the other hand, they are expensive and require extensive abutment teeth preparation compared to the conventional clasp retained RPD. Meticulous and complex clinical and laboratory procedures are needed too. Moreover, attachment placement is dependent on several factors as the available clinical crown height of the abutment teeth, available interarch space, number of supporting abutments and their periodontal condition [8,9,10].

One of the most commonly used materials for attachment fabrication is the Cobalt chromium (Co-Cr) alloy. Such an alloy has revealed good clinical results due to its high modulus of elasticity, hardness and low cost [9]. Thanks to the wide applications of the digital technology in the dental field, esthetic materials as Zirconia and Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) can be used nowadays for fabrication of different prosthesis with high precision and passive seating [10,11,12]. Zirconia was used for fabrication of bridges, double crowns and extracoronal attachments due to its biocompatibility, good esthetics, high hardness, durability and wear resistance [9, 13,14,15]. High-strength polymeric resins as the PEEK material have been introduced as a promising alternative to ceramic materials [10]. Such a material has been described to have unique resilient properties, shock absorption, biocompatibility, corrosion resistance, minimal creep and modulus of elasticity similar to bone [10, 11, 16, 17]. Several studies investigated the PEEK material when used as implant supported frameworks, posts in endodontically treated teeth as well as clasps in RPD and gave promising results [18,19,20,21,22].

Stress analysis studies were used for evaluation of the stress patterns induced by Co-Cr, Zirconia and PEEK materials in RPD. Sadek et al. concluded that PEEK could be a material of choice for restoring free end partially edentulous cases due to its superior biological and mechanical properties [12]. Furthermore, Saleh et al. used strain gauge analysis to compare the stresses induced by different Co-Cr attachment designs [7]. Jagodin et al. also showed that zirconia can be used as an extracoronal attachment in RPD provided that a suitable attachment design is selected [14]. Moreover, Orujov et al. concluded that the tooth preparation and the mesiodistal length of the extracoronal attachment made of zirconia affect the stresses developed at the tooth attachment interface [16].

However, the stresses induced by PEEK when used as an extracoronal attachment material in distal extension removable partial denture were not assessed and mentioned in the literature. So, the current study was conducted to compare the stresses induced on the supporting abutments and the residual ridge by two esthetic core materials; zirconia and polyetheretherketone when used as an extracoronal attachment in distal extension removable partial dentures using strain gauge analysis. The null hypothesis was that no difference existed in the stresses induced on the supporting abutments and the residual ridge by both materials in attachment retained distal extension RPD.

Methods

The current study was conducted using a digitally produced mandibular Kennedy class II model [23]. The terminal abutments in the free end saddle side were the mandibular left canine and the first premolar teeth. Two models were used in which the attachment was made out of zirconia in the model ZR while in the model PE, it was made out of PEEK. Five removable partial dentures were made in each group (Fig. 1). The sample size was calculated in the light of the results published by Emera et al. It was based on 95% confidence interval and power 80% with α error 5% (MedCalc® version 12.3.0.0 program, Ostend, Belgium) [24].

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flowchart showing the study workflow

Full size image

For model construction, an educational mandibular Kennedy class II stone cast (Ramses medical products, Cairo, Egypt) was used. Preparations for rest seats were made in the right mandibular second premolar and the mandibular first molar to receive a Double Aker clasp [25]. The cast was then scanned (DOF swing scanner, DOFlabs, Seoul, South Korea) and a standard tessellation language (STL) file of the virtual cast was produced. Using the CAD software (Exocad Dental CAD, Exocad Inc. Darmstadt, Germany), the mandibular left canine and first premolar teeth were virtually removed from the virtual cast by Boolean subtraction. Meanwhile a mandibular left canine and first premolar acrylic teeth (Ramses medical products, Cairo, Egypt) were prepared to have a heavy chamfer finish line [10]. A Secondary plane of reduction was made on the labial and buccal surfaces of the teeth. The prepared mandibular teeth were scanned and the STL file was produced [10]. Using the CAD software, the scanned acrylic teeth were virtually superimposed in their corresponding sockets. A space of 0.25 mm was left between the inner surface of the socket and each tooth root surface simulating the periodontal membrane space. A 2 mm layer thickness was removed from the residual ridge crest of the scanned model representing the mucosal layer that was added later [26, 27]. Two strain gauge slots were designed on the software to receive the strain gauge rosettes. The first one was placed distal to the socket of the terminal abutment and the second slot was placed posteriorly in the edentulous ridge (Fig. 2a) [26, 27]. The design of the virtual model was checked and the STL file was sent to the 3D printing machine(Form2 3D printer, formlabs, Somerville, Massachusetts, United States). Similarly, two pairs of the prepared mandibular left canine and mandibular left first premolar were digitally printed (Fig. 2b). The printed model and prepared teeth were then checked for any defects and the teeth were placed in their sockets.

Fig. 2
figure 2

a. Diagram showing the virtually designed model having the sockets of abutment teeth and the strain gauge slots. b. Diagram showing the virtually designed abutment dies having a heavy chamfer finish line

Full size image

The whole model was then scanned and two splinted crowns were designed (Exocad Dental CAD, Exocad Inc. Darmstadt, Germany) for the prepared abutments. The lingual surface of the mandibular left first premolar crown was designed to have a shoulder finish line at the junction between the middle and gingival parts [4].The attachment (vario soft 3 mini sv, Bredent medical group Gmbh, Germany) was chosen from the software library and attached to the distal wall of the mandibular left first premolar crown [14, 28, 29]. The attachment was placed on a line bisecting the angle between the crest of the ridge and the sagittal plane of the model (Fig. 3a) [30]. In the model ZR, the crowns and the attachment were milled out of zirconia (katana, Kuraray Noritake Dental, Inc, Okayama, Japan) in a five axis milling machine(DWX-52D, Roland DGA, California, USA) and sintered(sintering temperature 1650 oc, total process time 239 min) (Fig. 3b). However, in the model PE they were milled out of PEEK (Brecam Biohpp, Bredent medical group Gmbh, Germany) (Fig. 3c). The crowns and the attachments were then checked for perfect fit with the prepared abutments and cemented in place with temporary cement (Cavex temporary cement, Cavex Holland BV, Netherlands).

Fig. 3
figure 3

a. Top view for the virtual placement of the selected attachment design showing lingual preparation for the lingual guiding arm of the removable partial denture on the lingual side of the mandibular left first premolar. b. Lateral view for the 3D printed model with the milled zirconia attachment. c. Lateral view for the 3D printed model with the milled PEEK attachment

Full size image

After attachment cementation, the edentulous ridge in the model was covered by two layers of modeling wax (Cavex Holland BV, Netherlands) to compensate for the 2 mm height subtracted from the crest of the residual ridge during virtual model designing. Each model was then duplicated and an acrylic sheet (Bio-Art Equipamentos Odontologicos Ltda, Brasil) was then pressed on the duplicate cast using a vacuum press machine (Yates Motloid, United States of America). Light body silicone rubber base impression material (Speedex, C-silicone, Coltene, Coltene whaledent Inc., Altstätten, Switzerland) was placed on the crest of the residual ridge of the model and the acrylic template was then seated [26]. The mucosa simulating layer was then bonded in place using a cyanoacrylate adhesive (Amir Alpha Co., Cairo, Egypt).

Each model was then duplicated into a refractory cast for RPD fabrication. For the RPD design, a combined denture base was used in addition to a Double Aker clasp placed on the mandibular right second premolar and first molar teeth. The lingual bar was used as a major connector. Lost wax technique was used for RPD fabrication(Fig. 4a). The female part (Bredent medical group Gmbh, Germany) was then picked up in the RPD with cold cure acrylic resin material (Duralay, Interfloor, Haslingden, Lancashire, UK) (Fig. 4b) (Fig. 4c).

Fig. 4
figure 4

a. (Frontal view) of the 3D Printed model with zirconia attachment and the removable partial denture. b. Fitting surface of the removable partial denture showing the matrix part of the attachment. c. The matrix part of the attachment; 4.1 mm depth, 2.6 mm width, 6.0 mm length, yellow color indicating regular retention

Full size image

The strain gauges rosettes (KFG-1-120-C1-11L1M2R; Kyowa Electronic Instruments Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan; resistance 119.6 ± 0.4% Ω; length:1 mm; factor: 2.08 ± 1.0%) were placed in their grooves on the distal aspect of the abutment and the edentulous ridge perpendicular to the occlusal plane [26, 27]. A delicate layer of cyanoacrylate adhesive (Amir Alpha, Cairo, Egypt) was used to bond the rosettes in place. The terminals of the strain gauge wires were attached to a sensor interface board of a quarter bridge circuit four channel strain meter (Kyowa sensor interface PCD-300 A; Kyowa Electronic Instruments Co., Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) to convert the electro impulses to micro strain [31]. Each model was placed on the lower plate of the universal testing machine (Lloyd LRX; Lloyd Instruments Ltd., Fareham, UK) with cell load 5000 N. For calibration 10–60 N loads were applied five times in 10 N steps [26]. For unilateral loading, an I bar shaped load applicator was placed on the central fossa of the mandibular left first molar tooth. The central fossa was notched in each overdenture to replicate the position of load application (Fig. 5) [26]. The magnitude of the applied load was 100 N and was increased from 0 to 100 N at a constant rate of 0.5 mm/min [26, 31]. Once the load was applied, the software (PCD-30 A; Kyowa Electronic Instruments Co., Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) was converted the microvoltage output into a microstrain reading using the formula \(e\theta \, = \,1/4 \cdot (\Delta R)/R.E\, \equiv 1/4\,.Ks.\varepsilon .E\)

(e; output voltage, R; resistance, ΔR; resistance changes due to strain, E; excitation voltage, K: gauge factor). For each removable partial denture, five measurements were made. Five minutes recovery period was permitted between the measurements [26].

Fig. 5
figure 5

Unilateral load application of 100 N on the central fossa of the mandibular left first molar using the Universal testing machine

Full size image

For blinding, the models were coded by a second party rather than the authors before the measurements were made. The measurements were made by a single operator in the Biomaterials laboratory available in author’s university who was instructed about the site and magnitude of load application. A trial measurement for demonstration to the laboratory operator was made before the actual measurements were made. Once the load was completely applied, the data were analysed using the software (PCD-300 A Kyowa Electronic Instruments Co., Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) and the microstrain values were recorded. The secret codes were then decoded and the results were given to the authors.

Statistical analysis was performed using the statistical package for social sciences, version 21.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA). The recorded data followed normal distribution as indicated by Kolmogrov-Smirnov normality test. Paired and Un-paired T tests were used for intra and inter group comparisons respectively. The significance level was set at P < 0.05. Negative values indicated compressive strain while positive values indicated tensile strain.

Results

During unilateral loading, compressive and tensile strains developed distal to the abutment and in the residual ridge respectively in both models. Moreover, unpaired t test revealed a statistically significant difference in the microstrain values developed distal to the abutment in both models (P-value = 0.0001, T-value = 47.21). However, there was no statistically significant difference in the microstrain values developed in the residual ridge between them (P-value = 0.3122, T-value = 1.02). Meanwhile, paired t test showed a statistically significant difference in the microstrain values developed distal to the abutment and the residual ridge in each model. The microstrain values are listed in Table (1).

Table 1 Microstrain values recorded distal to the abutment and the residual ridge in both models during unilateral loading
Full size table

Discussion

Esthetic core materials as Zirconia and PEEK have been used for the fabrication of dental attachments in prosthodontics [12, 14, 15]. However, the stresses induced by them when used as an extracoronal attachment in distal extension removable partial denture were not compared and mentioned in the literature. So, the current study was conducted to compare the stresses induced on the supporting abutments and the residual ridge by such materials when used as an extracoronal attachment in distal extension removable partial dentures using strain gauge analysis. The null hypothesis was partially rejected as there was a statistically significant difference in the stresses induced in the supporting abutments between both materials. Meanwhile, there was no statistically significant difference in the stresses induced in the residual ridge. The microstrain values recorded distal to the abutment for the model PE were lower than the model ZR. This could be attributed to the shock absorbing property of the PEEK material [10, 11, 17, 18]. Such a result came in accordance with the results of Keiling et al. in which PEEK delivered less stresses to the underlying abutments in partial dentures [32]. Similarly, Emera et al. concluded that PEEK telescopic overdenture abutments induced less peri-abutment strain compared to Zirconia [24]. Tzu-Yu Penget al, also reported less stresses being delivered to the underlying abutments when PEEK was used as a clasp material in RPD compared to other materials [21]. Moreover, Sirandoni et al., showed less stresses at the site of load application in implant supported PEEK frameworks compared to more rigid frameworks as Titanium [22]. Its elastic modulus being closer to bone and acrylic resin compared to zirconia may have also helped with better stress distribution [16, 20]. The less stresses reported in the previously mentioned studies were also related to the shock absorbing property of PEEK in addition to the good stress distribution [19,20,21,22,23, 25, 35].

However, regarding the stresses induced in the residual ridge, there was no statistically significant difference between both models. This can be explained in the light of the results published by Sirandoni et al. [22] and Lee et al. [33] who reported that the shock absorbing property of the PEEK material is limited to the site of load application and where the stress is compressive in nature. Accordingly higher stresses were recorded in the regions distant from the PEEK attachment and where the direction of the developed stresses changed from being compressive distal to the abutment to being tensile in the residual ridge. Furthermore the insignificant difference between both models in the stresses developed in the residual ridge could be attributed to the low elastic modulus of the PEEK material that may have generated a larger bending moment of the removable partial denture and more denture movement under functioning loads and consequently higher bending forces on the residual ridge [33, 34]. Moreover, PEKK material was stated not to allow even distribution of the functional load leading to areas that bear high loads and others that bear lesser loads [26, 27].

Distal to the abutment, the application of unilateral loading in the current study resulted in compressive and tensile micro strains in the supporting abutments and the residual ridge respectively in both models. Such a result matches the results published by saleh et al. [7], chen et al. [34] and Jin Suk Yoo et al. [35]. This could be explained in the light of the difference in the compressibility between the resilient mucosa and partial denture abutment that caused rotational movement of the partial denture during load application [27, 33,34,35]. Paired T test showed a statistically significant difference in the microstrain values developed in each model for both groups; being higher distal to the abutment compared to the residual ridge. Such a finding comes in line with further studies that reported higher stress levels in the abutments supporting the extracoronal attachments compared to the residual ridge in attachment retained distal extension RPD [36, 37].

In the current study, the models were virtually designed and printed to allow standardization between the models in both groups regarding the exact position of the abutment teeth and placement of strain gauge slots in relation to them. Furthermore, the slots were made uniform and smooth helping to avoid strains that may result from rough surfaces [23, 38]. The design of the attachment was selected in the light of the manufacturer recommendation for zirconia and PEEK materials as its shear distribution property provides protection for the supporting structures and to avoid further designs that may affect the strain values in the current study [14, 28]. The lingual guiding arm was used in the RPD design as it shares some of the loads transmitted to the supporting structures [4]. The lingual bar major connector provided the cross arch stabilization needed to reduce the buccolingual rotation of the RPD and to control the stresses delivered to the abutments [38]. Temporary cement was used in the current study while, in the clinical setting a permanent cement is usually used; a factor that may affect stresses delivered to the abutments compared to the temporary cement. However, the temporary cement in the current study was not a variable.

Clinically, preservation of the remaining oral structures, minimizing the stresses delivered to the abutments and the residual ridge in addition to providing a satisfactory esthetic result are the major objectives in rehabilitating partially edentulous patients with distal extension saddles. Extracoronal attachments provide an esthetic solution for such rehabilitation. Meanwhile, in the light of the current study results, the PEEK material compared to the Zirconia material could be clinically speculated to cause less stress and minimize the torque delivered to the supporting abutments at the same time of providing satisfactory esthetic quality when being used as an extracoronal attachment in the distal extension removable partial dentures. Accordingly, the supporting abutments could stand and last for a long period of time. So, a durable and esthetic prosthetic rehabilitation could be expected; a condition that may lead to a better patient satisfaction and improved quality of life. Although Gagodin et al. [14] compared failure rates and modes for different designs of zirconia attachments compared to the metallic ones under simulated dynamic loading, yet data are limited for PEEK extracoronal attachments. Accordingly, further studies in that scope are needed.

Although the authors managed to standardize fabrication of the models in the current study, site and magnitude of load application in addition to the position of strain gauge rosettes yet the current study offers a number of limitations. First of all, the effect of static axial loading was investigated. However, the human masticatory loads are dynamic and complex in nature. Furthermore, there is variation in the magnitude of load application in the studies related to the rehabilitation with removable partial dentures in the literature. Dahab et al., used 200 N in their study to analyze the stresses on the mandibular unilateral distal extension saddle [39]. Meanwhile, Bhattacharya, D et al., used 100–125 N in their study applied on bilateral distal extension implant-assisted removable partial dentures [40]. However, the 100 N load was the one selected in the current study in the light of Fahmy MM et al. study, applied on the removable partial dentures with 100 N load [27]. Moreover, acrylic resin; the material used for model fabrication, is limited in simulating the mechano-biological nature of the human bone. Furthermore, Zirconia and PEEK are esthetic core materials that need further lamination; a procedure that was not performed in the current study. So, further preclinical investigations evaluating the bond strength of Zirconia and PEEK with the overlying laminate materials under simulated aging conditions should be done. Randomized clinical trials comparing the clinical performance of extracoronal attachments made of Zirconia and PEEK in free end RPDS need to be designed and executed as well.

Conclusions

In removable partial dentures, Polyetheretherketone extracoronal attachment induces less stress on the supporting abutments compared to the zirconia one with no difference in the stresses induced by them on the residual ridge.

Data availability

The dataset used for calculation of the stress value is available from yhe corresponding author upon request.

References

  1. Vaidya S, Kapoor C, Bakshi Y, Bhalla S. Achieving an esthetic smile with fixed and removal prosthesis using extracoronal castable precision attachments. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2015;15:284–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Tribst JPM, Dal Piva AM, de O, Borges ALS, Araújo RM, da Silva JMF, Bottino MA, et al. Effect of different materials and undercut on the removal force and stress distribution in circumferential clasps during direct retainer action in removable partial dentures. Dent Mater. 2020;36:179–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gowd MS, Shankar T, Ranjan R, Singh A. Prosthetic consideration in implant-supported prosthesis: a review of literature. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2017;7:1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Chander GN. Palliative Care with attachment hybrid removable prosthesis. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017;11:45–6.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Patil R, Shetty O. Prosthetic rehabilitation using extra coronal attachments. J Clin Diagn Res. 2019;4:5–8.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Saneja R, Bhatnagar A, Raj N, Dubey P. Semiprecision attachment: a connecting link between the removable and fixed prosthesis. BMJ Case Rep. 2020;13:1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Saleh MM, Dhia A. Effects of new modification in the design of the attachments retaining distal extension partial denture on stress distribution around the abutments and residual ridges: an in vitro study. Dent Hypotheses. 2017;8:57–60.

    Google Scholar 

  8. John AV, Abraham G, Alias A. Two-visit CAD/CAM milled dentures in the rehabilitation of edentulous arches: a case series. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2019;19:88–92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Kanathila H, Pangi A. An insight into various attachments used in prosthodontics: a review. Int J Appl Dent Sci. 2018;4:157–60.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Attia MA, Shokry TE. Effect of different fabrication techniques on the marginal precision of polyetheretherketone single-crown copings. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;124:565.e1-565.e7.

  11. Abdraboh A, Elsyad M, Mourad S, Alameldeen H. Milled Bar with PEEK and Metal Housings for inclined implants supporting Mandibular overdentures: 1-Year clinical, prosthetic, and patient-based outcomes. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2020;35:982–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sadek SA. Comparative study clarifying the usage of PEEK as suitable material to be used as partial denture attachment and framework. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2019;7:1193–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Schwindling FS, Rammelsberg P, Krisam J, Rues S. Adjustment of retention of all-ceramic double-crown attachments. Int J Comput Dent. 2017;20:409–21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Jagodin S, Sasse M, Freitag-Wolf S, Kern M. Influence of attachment design and material on the retention of resin-bonded attachments. Clin Oral Investig. 2019;23:1217–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Orujov K, Winter W, Karl M, Heckmann S, Grobecker-Karl T. Adhesive removable partial denture attachments made from zirconia ceramic: a finite element analysis and in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;22:1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Skirbutis G, Dzingutė A, Masiliūnaitė V, Šulcaitė G, Žilinskas J. A review of PEEK Polymer’s properties and its use in prosthodontics. Stomatologija. 2017;19:19–23.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Zoidis P, Papathanasiou I, Polyzois G. The Use of a modified poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) as an alternative Framework Material for Removable Dental Prostheses. A clinical report. J Prosthodont. 2016;25:580–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Nahar R, Mishra SK, Chowdhary R. Evaluation of stress distribution in an endodontically treated tooth restored with four different post systems and two different crowns- A finite element analysis. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2020;10:719–26.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Tekin S, Adiguzel O, Cangul S, Atas O, Erpacal B. Evaluation of the use of PEEK material in post-core and crown restorations using finite element analysis. Am J Dent. 2020;33:251–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Haralur SB. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with various esthetic posts. Technol Heal Care. 2021;29:243–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Peng TY, Ogawa Y, Akebono H, Iwaguro S, Sugeta A, Shimoe S. Finite-element analysis and optimization of the mechanical properties of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) clasps for removable partial dentures. J Prosthodont Res. 2020;64:250–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sirandoni D, Leal E, Weber B, Noritomi P, Fuentes R, Borie E. Effect of different Framework materials in Implant-supported fixed Mandibular prostheses: a finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019;34:e107–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Onoral O, Abugofa A. Advancements in 3D Printing Technology: applications and options for prosthetic Dentistry. Cyprus J Med Sci. 2020;5:176–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Emera K, Altonbary R, Elbashir G. Comparison between all zirconia, all PEEK, and zirconia-PEEK telescopic attachments for two implants retained mandibular complete overdentures: in vitro stress analysis study. J Dent Implant. 2019;9:24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Arch C, Strain SA, In G, Study V. Class II kennedy implant assisted mandibular removable partial dentures with and without cross arch stabilization: a strain gauge in vitro study. 2020;66:1173–82.

  26. Mohamed AMA, Nawar NH. Strain Gauge Analysis of the Stresses Induced by Different Secondary Coping Materials in Tooth Supported Telescopic Overdentures. Eur J ProsthodontRestor Dent. 2022 ;30:214 – 22.

  27. Fahmy MM, Al-Afandy MH, Mohamed HT, Abdelfattah Mohamed AM. Effect of different framework materials on stresses induced in distal extension removable partial dentures: A strain gauge analysis. J Prosthodont. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13847

  28. Veleski D, Antanasova M. Applying acrylock and vario soft-3 attachements in the contemporary dental prosthodontics. Rom J Oral Rehabil. 2012;4:48–52.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Can G, Özmumcu B, Altinci P. In vitro retention loss of attachment-retained removable partial denture. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2013;14:1049–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Preiskel HW. Precision attachments in dentistry. 3rd edit. Henry Kimpton (publishers) LTD. London. 1979. 120 p.

  31. ELsyad MA, Kabil AAEG, Mekawy N, El. Effect of implant position and edentulous span length on stresses around implants assisting claspless distal extension partial overdentures: an in vitro study. J Oral Implantol. 2017;43:100–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Keilig L, Stark H, Bourauel C. Does the material stiffness of Novel High-Performance polymers for fixed partial dentures influence their Biomechanical Behavior? Int J Prosthodont. 2016;29:595–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lee K-S, Shin S-W, Lee S-P, Kim J-E, Kim J-H, Lee J-Y. Comparative evaluation of a Four-Implant–supported Polyetherketoneketone Framework Prosthesis: A three-dimensional finite element analysis based on Cone Beam computed tomography and computer-aided design. Int J Prosthodont. 2017;30:581–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Chen X, Mao B, Zhu Z, Yu J, Lu Y, Zhang Q, et al. A three-dimensional finite element analysis of mechanical function for 4 removable partial denture designs with 3 framework materials: CoCr, Ti-6Al-4V alloy and PEEK. Sci Rep. 2019;9:1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Yoo JS, Kwon KR, Noh K, Lee H, Paek J. Stress analysis of mandibular implant overdenture with locator and bar/clip attachment: comparative study with differences in the denture base length. J Adv Prosthodont. 2017;9:143–51.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Ferraço R, Pellizzer EP, Tonella BP, Falcón-Antenucci RM, Verri FR, Dekon SF, Goiato MC. Photoelastic analysis of the influence of residual ridge inclination in conjugated class I mandibular prostheses with different attachment systems. Acta Odontol Scand. 2013;71:984–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. SILVEIRA A, AFONSO A, SILVA R, De ARAÚJOC, VIEIRA W, PARANHOS L, COSTA M. Comparative analysis of stress distribution in different prosthetic solutions for kennedy class I bilateral posterior edentulous arches. Biosci J. 2018;34:1824–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Ben-Ur Z, Mijiritsky E, Gorfil C, Brosh T. Stiffness of different designs and cross-sections of maxillary and mandibular major connectors of removable partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 1999;81:526–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Dahab I, El- Gendy AA, El torky IR. In vitro stress analysis study of different prosthetic options using single posterior implant for management of mandibular unilateral distal extension saddle. Tanta Dent J. 2015;12:7–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Bhattacharya D, Ponnanna AA, Jingade RRK, Maiti S, Rai N. Gopalkrishna M.An In vitro assessment of optimizing implant positions in bilateral distal extension implant-assisted removable. Partial dentures: a microstress analysis. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2024;24(1):82–7.

Download references

Acknowledgements

not applicable.

Funding

not applicable.

Open access funding provided by The Science, Technology & Innovation Funding Authority (STDF) in cooperation with The Egyptian Knowledge Bank (EKB).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Oral and Maxillofacial prosthodontics Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Ain Shams University, African unity organization street, Cairo, 11561, Egypt

    Dina Abd El Moez Abd Allah, Noha Helmy Nawar & Ahmed Mostafa Abdelfattah

Authors
  1. Dina Abd El Moez Abd Allah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Noha Helmy Nawar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ahmed Mostafa Abdelfattah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

DAA: Conceptualization, methodology, writing- original draft, writing- review and editing, data curation. NHHN: Methodology, software, analysis, writing- review and editing. AMA: Conceptualization, methodology, writing original draft, writing- review and editing, data curation. All authors have read and approved the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dina Abd El Moez Abd Allah.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval and consent to participate

not applicable.

Consent for publication

not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abd Allah, D.A., Nawar, N.H. & Abdelfattah, A.M. Effect of two esthetic digitally produced materials used in fabrication of extracoronal attachments on the stresses Induced in removable partial dentures. BMC Oral Health 24, 760 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04477-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04477-2

Keywords

BMC Oral Health

ISSN: 1472-6831

Contact us