Bond Strength Evaluation of Inlay-Retained Resin-Bonded Fixed Partial Dentures with Two Different Cavity Designs and Two Different Adhesive Systems: In Vitro Study

Ediz Kale 1 , Ayça Deniz İzgi 2  and Remzi Niğiz 2
  • 1 , Bursa, Turkey
  • 2 Department of Prosthodontics, Dicle University Faculty of Dentistry, Diyarbakir, Turkey


Background/Aim: The purpose of this in-vitro study was to compare the resin-bonded fixed partial dentures (RBFPD) fabricated using two different structural designs and two different antibacterial adhesive lutting protocols in regard to their resistance to debonding.

Material and Methods: Forty samples for a model with single missing molar were divided into 4 groups (M1, M2, C1, C2) (n=10). M1 and M2 were prepared in accordance with modified inlay slot-cavity retained RBFPD design; C1 and C2 were prepared according to conventional inlay slot-cavity retained RBFPD design. M1 and C1 cavities were treated with 2% chlorhexidine-based (CHX) cavity disinfectant and 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (MDP) containing adhesive system; M2 and C2 cavities were treated with MDP and 12-methacryloyloxydodecylpyridinium bromide (MDPB) containing adhesive system featuring antibacterial cavity cleansing effect. The RBFPDs were made of base-metal alloy and their fit surfaces sandblasted with aluminium oxide (Al2O3). Adhesive resin cement was used for cementation, and the RBFPD retainers were interlocked into their corresponding inlay cavities using composite resin. After 1 week being immersed in aqueous environment, the RBFPDs were subjected to tensile loading at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min until failure. One way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests were used for statistical evaluation (α=0.05). Mode of failure and tooth damage was also noted.

Results: Mean tensile bond strength values were 356 N for M1, 305 N for M2, 467 N for C1, and 455 N for C2. Tensile strength values of C1 and C2 were significantly higher than those of M1 and M2 (p<0.05). The mode of failure was mostly adhesive in character at the metal-cement interface in all groups. Tooth fracture was observed nearly in all specimens. No significant difference was detected between the antibacterial adhesive lutting protocols (p>0.05).

Conclusions: The RBFPDs with the conventional design were found to be more retentive than those with the modified design. Using an adhesive system featuring antibacterial properties with no need of separate antibacterial agent application during bonding may be favourable.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. Watanabe F, Powers JM, Lorey RE. In vitro bonding of prosthodontic adhesives to dental alloys. J Dent Res, 1988;67:479-483.

  • 2. Imbery TA, Eshelman EG. Resin-bonded fixed partial dentures: A review of three decades of progress. J Am Dent Assoc, 1996;127:1751-1760.

  • 3. El-Mowafy O, Rubo MHM. Resin bonded fixed partial dentures: A literature review with presentation of a novel approach. Int J Prosthodont, 2000;13:460-467.

  • 4. Yamashita A, Yamami T. Procedures for applying adhesive resin (MMA-TBB) to crown and bridge restorations. Part I. The influence of dental non-precious alloys and the treatment of inner surface of metal to adhesion. J Jpn Prosthet Dent, 1982;26:584-591.

  • 5. Matsumura H, Tanoue N, Atsuta M. Adhesive bonding of stainless steels and their component metals. J Oral Rehabil, 2000;27:1054-1059.

  • 6. Livaditis GJ. Cast metal resin-bonded retainers for posterior teeth. J Am Dent Assoc, 1980;101:926-929.

  • 7. Creugers NH, Käyser AF, Van’t Hof MA. A seven-and-a-half-year survival study of resin-bonded bridges. J Dent Res, 1992;71:1822-1825.

  • 8. Gilmour ASM, Ali A. Clinical performance of resin-retained fixed partial dentures bonded with a chemically active luting cement. J Prosthet Dent, 1995;73:569-573.

  • 9. Boening KW. Clinical performance of resin-bonded fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent, 1996;76:39-44.

  • 10. Shakal MAS, Pfeiffer P, Hilgers RD. Effect of tooth preparation design on bond strengths of resin-bonded prostheses: A pilot study. J Prosthet Dent, 1997;77:243-249.

  • 11. El-Mowafy OM. Posterior resin-bonded fixed partial denture with a modified retentive design: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent, 1998;80:9-11.

  • 12. Chow TW, Chung RWC, Chu FCS, Newsome PRH. Tooth preparation designed for posterior resin-bonded fixed partial dentures: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent, 2002;88:561-564.

  • 13. Shimizu H, Takahashi Y. Retainer design for posterior resin-bonded fixed partial dentures: A technical report. Quintessence Int, 2004;35:653-654.

  • 14. Izgi AD, Kale E, Eskimez S. A prospective cohort study on cast-metal slot-retained resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses in single missing first molar cases: results after up to 7.5 years. J Adhes Dent, 2013;15:73-84.

  • 15. Stokholm R, Isidor F. Resin-bonded inley retained prostheses for posterior teeth. A 5-year clinical study. Int J Prosthodont, 1996;9:161-166.

  • 16. El-Mowafy O, Rubo MHM. Retention of a posterior resin-bonded fixed partial denture with a modified design: An in vitro study. Int J Prosthodont, 2000;13:425-431.

  • 17. Magne P, Perakis N, Belser UC, Krejci I. Stress distribution of inlay-anchored adhesive fixed partial dentures: A finite element analysis of the influence of restorative materials and abutment preparation design. J Prosthet Dent, 2002;87:516-527.

  • 18. Brännström M. The cause of postoperative sensitivity and its prevention. J Endod, 1986;12:475-481.

  • 19. Meiers JC, Kresin JC. Cavity disinfectants and dentin bonding. Oper Dent, 1996;21:153-159.

  • 20. Gultz J, Do L, Boylan R, Kaim J, Scherer W. Antimicrobial activity of cavity disinfectants. Gen Dent, 1999;47:187-190.

  • 21. Gürgan S, Bolay Ş, Kiremitçi A. Effect of disinfectant application methods on the bond strength of composite to dentin. J Oral Rehabil, 1999;26:836-840.

  • 22. Cao D, Hollis R, Christensen GJ, Christensen RP. Effect of tooth disinfecting procedures on dentin shear bond strength. J Dent Res, 1995;74:73.

  • 23. Türkün M, Türkün Ş, Ergücü Z, Ateş M. Is an antibacterial adhesive system more effective than cavity disinfectants? Am J Dent, 2006;19:166-170.

  • 24. De Munck J, Van Meerbeek B, Satoshi I, Vargas M, Yoshida Y, Armstrong S, et al. Micro-tensile bond strength of oneand two-step self-etch adhesives to bur-cut enamel and dentin. Am J Dent, 2003;16:414-420.

  • 25. Sturdevant JR, Brunson WD, Brantley CF. Bond strengths of resin-bonded metal castings. Dent Mater, 1985;1:219-224.

  • 26. Rammelsberg P, Pospiech P, Garnet W. Clinical factors affecting adhesive fixed partial dentures: A 6-year study. J Prosthet Dent, 1993;70:300-307.

  • 27. Garcia-Godoy F, Kaiser DA, Malone WF, Hubbard G. Shear bond strength of two resin adhesives for acid-etched metal prostheses. J Prosthet Dent, 1991;65:787-789.

  • 28. Cal E, Türkün LŞ, Türkün M, Toman M, Toksavul S. Effect of an antibacterial adhesive on the bond strength of three different luting resin composites. J Dent, 2006;34:372-380.

  • 29. Fukegawa D, Hayakawa S, Yoshida Y, Suzuki K, Osaka A, Van Meerbeek B. Chemical interaction of phosphoric acid ester with hydroxyapatite. J Dent Res, 2006;85:941-944.

  • 30. Garcia RN, Reis AF, Giannini M. Effect of activation mode of dual-cured resin cements and low-viscosity composite liners on bond strength to dentin. J Dent, 2007;35:564-569.

  • 31. De Castro FL, De Andrade MF, Duarte Júnior SL, Vaz LG, Ahid FJ. Effect of 2% chlorhexidine on microtensile bond strength of composite to dentin. J Adhes Dent, 2003;5:129-138.

  • 32. Imazato S, Torii Y, Takatsuka T, Inoue K, Ebi N, Ebisu S. Bactericidal effect of dentin primer containing antibacterial monomer methacryloyloxydodecylpyridinium bromide (MDPB) against bacteria in human carious dentin. J Oral Rehabil, 2001;28:314-319.

  • 33. Imazato S. A new adhesive system incorporating an antibacterial MDPB: its efficacy and benefit. In: J. Tagami, editor. Self-etching primer: current status and its evolution. 1st ed. Tokyo: Kuraray Medical Inc; 2003. p. 67-77.

  • 34. Rissin L, Feldman RS, Kapur KK, Chauncey HH. Six-year report of the periodontal health of fixed and removable partial denture abutment teeth. J Prosthet Dent, 1985;54:461-467.

  • 35. Freilich MA, Niekrash CE, Katz RV, Simonsen RJ. The effects of resin-bonded and conventional fixed partial dentures on the periodontium: Restoration type evaluated. J Am Dent Assoc, 1990;121:265-269.

  • 36. Wood M, Thompson VP, Romberg E, Morrison G. Resin-bonded fixed partial dentures. II. Clinical findings related to prosthetic characteristics after approximately 10 years. J Prosthet Dent, 1996;76:368-373.


Journal + Issues