Mechanical comparison of milled fiber-reinforced resin composite and Co-Cr frameworks with different connector cross-sectional geometries: An in vitro study

Bruna Neves de Freitas,Bruna Santos Honório Tonin,Danilo Zaparolli,Adriana Claudia Lapria Faria,Marcelo Bighetti Toniollo,Ricardo Faria Ribeiro,Ana Paula Macedo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2023.105759

Abstract:This study compared the effect of using milled fiber-reinforced resin composite and Co-Cr (milled wax and lost-wax technique) frameworks for 4-unit implant-supported partial fixed dental prostheses; and also, evaluated the influence of the connector's cross-sectional geometries on the mechanical behavior. Three groups of milled fiber-reinforced resin composite (TRINIA) for 4-unit implant-supported frameworks (n = 10) with three connectors geometries (round, square, or trapezoid), and three groups of Co-Cr alloy frameworks manufactured by milled wax/lost wax and casting technique, were analyzed. The marginal adaptation was measured before cementation using an optical microscope. Then, the samples were cemented, thermomechanical cycled (load of 100 N/2 Hz, 106 cycles; 5, 37, and 55 ᵒC, a total of 926 cycles at each one), and cementation and flexure strength (maximum force) analyzed. Analysis of stress distribution in framework veneered considering resin and ceramic properties for fiber-reinforced and Co-Cr frameworks, respectively, implant, and bone was by finite element analysis under three contact points (100 N) on the central region. ANOVA and Multiple paired test-t with Bonferroni adjustment (α = 0.05) were used for data analysis. Fiber-reinforced frameworks showed better vertical adaptation (mean ranged from 26.24 to 81.48 μm) compared to the Co-Cr frameworks (mean ranged from 64.11 to 98.12 μm), contrary to horizontal adaptation (respectively, means ranged from 281.94 to 305.38 μm; and from 150.70 to 174.82 μm). There were no failures during the thermomechanical test. Cementation strength showed three times higher for Co-Cr compared to fiber-reinforced framework, as well as flexural strength (P < .001). Regarding stress distribution, fiber-reinforced had a pattern of concentration in the implant-abutment complex. There were no significant differences in stress values or changes observed among the different connector geometries or framework materials. Trapezoid connector geometry had a worse performance for marginal adaptation, cementation (fiber-reinforced 132.41 N; Co-Cr 255.68 N) and flexural strength (fiber-reinforced 222.57 N; Co-Cr 614.27 N). Although the fiber-reinforced framework showed lower cementation and flexural strength, considering the stress distribution values and absence of failures in the thermomechanical cycling test, it can be considered for use as a framework for 4-unit implant-supported partial fixed dental prostheses in the posterior mandible. Besides, results suggest that trapezoid connectors mechanical behavior did not perform well compared to round or square geometries.