Finite element analysis of cantilevered Maryland Bridge in restoration of missing maxillary central incisor
CHU Xiaoyang1, XIN Guofeng2, FU Jianhong3, YU Kaitao1
1. Department of Stomatology, the Fifth Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital; Beijing 100071, China; 2. Beijing Sheng-bin Science and Trade Co, Ltd, the 22nd Outpatient Department of ARRAIL Dentistry; Beijing 100021, China; 3. Beijing ARRAIL Stomatological Hospital Group, Beijing 100021, China
Abstract：Objective To explore the use of cantilevered Maryland Bridge to repair the loss of maxillary anterior teeth that were not suitable for conventional implantation. Methods One case of maxillary central incisor missing, bone condition not suitable for conventional implantation and pursuing minimally invasive restoration was selected. The clinical purpose and aesthetic effect of repairing missing teeth were completed by using cantilevered Maryland Bridge. Through the three-dimensional finite element model of the cantilevered Maryland Bridge of maxillary central incisor, the bridge was loaded with 100, 150 and 200 N loads respectively, and the mechanical analysis was carried out. Results When the cantilevered Maryland Bridge loaded with 100, 150 and 150 N, the maximum stress of the bridge body were 67.68, 101.53 and 135.37 MPa respectively. The stress distribution trend of maxillary central incisor cantilevered Maryland Bridge under different loads was similar, and the stress was concentrated at the junction and loading point between the bridge and the natural incisor. With the increase of load, the equivalent stress of each part increased accordingly, especially at the junction of loading point and cutting end. Conclusions The bonding strength of cantilevered Maryland Bridge should be increased at the proximal end of the natural tooth bonding surface and the occlusal contact of the bridge should be appropriately reduced.
Kern M, Knode H, Strubb J R. The all porcelain, resin-bonded bridge[J]. Quintessence Int, 1991, 22(4): 257-262.
[2]
Weng D, Ries S, Richter E J. Treatment of a juvenile patient with a maxillary all-ceramic resin-bonded fixed partial denture: a case report[J]. Quintessence Int, 2002, 33(8): 584-588.
Wei Y R, Wang X D, Zhang Q, et al. Clinical performance of anterior resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses with different framework designs: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. J Dent, 2016, 47:1-7.
[6]
Pjetursson B E, Tan W C, Tan K, et al. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of resin-bonded bridges after an observation period of at least 5 years[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2008, 19(2): 131-141.
[7]
Gratton D R, Jordan R E, Teteruck W R. Resin-bonded bridges: the state of the art[J]. Ont Dent, 1983, 60(5): 9-11, 13-16, 18-19.
[8]
Kern M, Glaser R. Cantilevered all ceramic, resin-bonded fixed partial dentures: a new treatment modality[J]. J Esthet Dent, 1997, 9(5): 255-264.
[9]
Sasse M, Eschbach S, Kern M. Randomized clinical trial on single retainer all-ceramic resin-bonded fixed partial dentures: influence of the bonding system after up to 55 months[J]. J Dent, 2012, 40(9): 783-786.
[10]
Dundar M, Ozcan M, Comlekoglu M E, et al. A preliminary report on short-term clinical outcomes of three-unit resin-bonded fixed prostheses using two adhesive cements and surface conditioning combinations[J]. Int J Prosthodont, 2010, 23(4): 353-360.
[11]
Dalen A, Feilzer A J, Kleverlaan C J. A literature review of two-unit cantilevered FPDs[J]. Int J Prosthodont, 2004, 17(3): 281-284.
Johnston C, Hussey D L. The immediate replacement of incisor teeth by cantilevered adhesive bridgework[J]. Dent Update, 1993, 20(8): 333-334.
[14]
Saker S, Fallal A, Madina M, et al. Clinical survival of anterior metal-ceramic and all-ceramic cantilever resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses over a period of 60 months[J]. Int J Prosthodont, 2014, 27(5): 422-424.
[15]
Sailer I, Bonani T, Brodbeck U, et al. Retrospective clinical study of single-retainer cantilever anterior and posterior glass-ceramic resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses at a mean follow-up of 6 years[J]. Int J Prosthodont, 2013, 26(5): 443-450.
[16]
Sasse M, Kern M. CAD/CAM single retainer zirconia-ceramic resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses: clinical outcome after 5 years[J]. Int J Comput Dent, 2013, 16(2): 109-118.
[17]
Gutmann J L. The origin of the Maryland bridge[J]. J Hist Dent, 2019, 67(2): 110.
[18]
Moon S Y, Lim Y J, Kim M J, et al. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of platform switched implant[J]. J Adv Prosthodont, 2017, 9(1): 31-37.
Eraslan O, Eraslan O, Eskitascioglu G, et al. Conservative restoration of severely damaged endodontically treated premolar teeth: a FEM study[J]. Clin Oral Investig, 2011, 15(3): 403-408.
[21]
Barink M, Mark P C, Fennis W M, et al. A three-dimensional finite element model of the polymerization process in dental restorations[J]. Biomaterials, 2003, 24(8): 1427-1435.
[22]
Jiang W, Bo H, Yongchun G,et al. Stress distribution in molars restored with inlays or onlays with or without endodontic treatment: a three-dimensional finite element analysis[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2010, 103(1): 6-12.
[23]
Yokoyama D, Shinya A, Gomi H, et al. Effects of mechanical properties of adhesive resin cements on stress distribution in fiber-reinforced composite adhesive fixed partial dentures[J]. Dent Mater J, 2012, 31(2): 189-196.
[24]
Toman M, Toksavul S, Sabanci S,et al. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of stress distribution of two-retainer and single-retainer all-ceramic resin-bonded fixed partial dentures[J]. Quintessence Int, 2015, 46(8): 691-696.
2023, Vol. 34 
