In vitro deformation of acetyl resin and metal alloy removable partial denture direct retainers

Jean C. Wu, George H. Latta, Russell Wicks, Robert L. Swords, Mark Scarbecz

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Statement of the problem. Acetyl resin removable partial denture (RPD) direct retainers may provide an esthetic alternative to conventional metal direct retainers. The effect of repeated stress on acetyl resin direct retainers is unknown. Purpose. This study compared deformation of acetyl resin and metal alloy RPD direct retainers after repeated dislodgments over a test die. Material and methods. Ten acetyl resin (Thermoflex) and 10 metal alloy (Ticonium Premium 100) RPD direct retainers, fabricated to manufacturers' specifications, were dislodged over a stainless steel die by means of a laboratory test apparatus for a simulated 3-year period (5000 cycles). Occlusal and facial digital images made before and after cycling were measured (mm) for direct retainer deformation by using computer-imaging software (Scion Image 1.62). Student t tests (α=.05) were performed for statistical comparisons. Results. A significant difference in deformation between acetyl resin and metal alloy direct retainers occurred in the occlusal view (P=.045), but not in the facial view (P=.832). Average deformation varied but was greatest in the occlusal view: 0.09 ± 0.8 mm for acetyl resin direct retainers compared with 0.01 ± 0.9 mm for metal alloy direct retainers. Average facial view deformations revealed no significant differences: 0.039 ± 0.6 mm for metal alloy and 0.033 ± 0.7 mm for acetyl resin direct retainers. Conclusion. Within the limitations of this in vitro study, significantly greater deformation resulted with acetyl resin compared with metal alloy direct retainers after 3 years of simulated use.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)586-590
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Volume90
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2003

Fingerprint

Removable Partial Denture
Metals
Stainless Steel
In Vitro Techniques
Esthetics
Software
Students

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Oral Surgery

Cite this

In vitro deformation of acetyl resin and metal alloy removable partial denture direct retainers. / Wu, Jean C.; Latta, George H.; Wicks, Russell; Swords, Robert L.; Scarbecz, Mark.

In: Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, Vol. 90, No. 6, 01.01.2003, p. 586-590.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{d034d32e44584077a8a878202be715fa,
title = "In vitro deformation of acetyl resin and metal alloy removable partial denture direct retainers",
abstract = "Statement of the problem. Acetyl resin removable partial denture (RPD) direct retainers may provide an esthetic alternative to conventional metal direct retainers. The effect of repeated stress on acetyl resin direct retainers is unknown. Purpose. This study compared deformation of acetyl resin and metal alloy RPD direct retainers after repeated dislodgments over a test die. Material and methods. Ten acetyl resin (Thermoflex) and 10 metal alloy (Ticonium Premium 100) RPD direct retainers, fabricated to manufacturers' specifications, were dislodged over a stainless steel die by means of a laboratory test apparatus for a simulated 3-year period (5000 cycles). Occlusal and facial digital images made before and after cycling were measured (mm) for direct retainer deformation by using computer-imaging software (Scion Image 1.62). Student t tests (α=.05) were performed for statistical comparisons. Results. A significant difference in deformation between acetyl resin and metal alloy direct retainers occurred in the occlusal view (P=.045), but not in the facial view (P=.832). Average deformation varied but was greatest in the occlusal view: 0.09 ± 0.8 mm for acetyl resin direct retainers compared with 0.01 ± 0.9 mm for metal alloy direct retainers. Average facial view deformations revealed no significant differences: 0.039 ± 0.6 mm for metal alloy and 0.033 ± 0.7 mm for acetyl resin direct retainers. Conclusion. Within the limitations of this in vitro study, significantly greater deformation resulted with acetyl resin compared with metal alloy direct retainers after 3 years of simulated use.",
author = "Wu, {Jean C.} and Latta, {George H.} and Russell Wicks and Swords, {Robert L.} and Mark Scarbecz",
year = "2003",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.prosdent.2003.09.020",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "90",
pages = "586--590",
journal = "Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry",
issn = "0022-3913",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - In vitro deformation of acetyl resin and metal alloy removable partial denture direct retainers

AU - Wu, Jean C.

AU - Latta, George H.

AU - Wicks, Russell

AU - Swords, Robert L.

AU - Scarbecz, Mark

PY - 2003/1/1

Y1 - 2003/1/1

N2 - Statement of the problem. Acetyl resin removable partial denture (RPD) direct retainers may provide an esthetic alternative to conventional metal direct retainers. The effect of repeated stress on acetyl resin direct retainers is unknown. Purpose. This study compared deformation of acetyl resin and metal alloy RPD direct retainers after repeated dislodgments over a test die. Material and methods. Ten acetyl resin (Thermoflex) and 10 metal alloy (Ticonium Premium 100) RPD direct retainers, fabricated to manufacturers' specifications, were dislodged over a stainless steel die by means of a laboratory test apparatus for a simulated 3-year period (5000 cycles). Occlusal and facial digital images made before and after cycling were measured (mm) for direct retainer deformation by using computer-imaging software (Scion Image 1.62). Student t tests (α=.05) were performed for statistical comparisons. Results. A significant difference in deformation between acetyl resin and metal alloy direct retainers occurred in the occlusal view (P=.045), but not in the facial view (P=.832). Average deformation varied but was greatest in the occlusal view: 0.09 ± 0.8 mm for acetyl resin direct retainers compared with 0.01 ± 0.9 mm for metal alloy direct retainers. Average facial view deformations revealed no significant differences: 0.039 ± 0.6 mm for metal alloy and 0.033 ± 0.7 mm for acetyl resin direct retainers. Conclusion. Within the limitations of this in vitro study, significantly greater deformation resulted with acetyl resin compared with metal alloy direct retainers after 3 years of simulated use.

AB - Statement of the problem. Acetyl resin removable partial denture (RPD) direct retainers may provide an esthetic alternative to conventional metal direct retainers. The effect of repeated stress on acetyl resin direct retainers is unknown. Purpose. This study compared deformation of acetyl resin and metal alloy RPD direct retainers after repeated dislodgments over a test die. Material and methods. Ten acetyl resin (Thermoflex) and 10 metal alloy (Ticonium Premium 100) RPD direct retainers, fabricated to manufacturers' specifications, were dislodged over a stainless steel die by means of a laboratory test apparatus for a simulated 3-year period (5000 cycles). Occlusal and facial digital images made before and after cycling were measured (mm) for direct retainer deformation by using computer-imaging software (Scion Image 1.62). Student t tests (α=.05) were performed for statistical comparisons. Results. A significant difference in deformation between acetyl resin and metal alloy direct retainers occurred in the occlusal view (P=.045), but not in the facial view (P=.832). Average deformation varied but was greatest in the occlusal view: 0.09 ± 0.8 mm for acetyl resin direct retainers compared with 0.01 ± 0.9 mm for metal alloy direct retainers. Average facial view deformations revealed no significant differences: 0.039 ± 0.6 mm for metal alloy and 0.033 ± 0.7 mm for acetyl resin direct retainers. Conclusion. Within the limitations of this in vitro study, significantly greater deformation resulted with acetyl resin compared with metal alloy direct retainers after 3 years of simulated use.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0348110626&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0348110626&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.prosdent.2003.09.020

DO - 10.1016/j.prosdent.2003.09.020

M3 - Article

C2 - 14668760

AN - SCOPUS:0348110626

VL - 90

SP - 586

EP - 590

JO - Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

JF - Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

SN - 0022-3913

IS - 6

ER -