Abstract
Fiber reinforced Composite (FRC) retainers have been introduced as an aesthetic alternative to conventional metallic splints, but present high rigidity. The purpose of the present investigation was to evaluate bending and fracture loads of FRC splints bonded with conventional full-coverage of the FRC with a composite compared with an experimental bonding technique with a partial (spot-) resin composite cover. Stainless steel rectangular flat, stainless steel round, and FRC retainers were tested at 0.2 and 0.3 mm deflections and at a maximum load. Both at 0.2 and 0.3 mm deflections, the lowest load required to bend the retainer was recorded for spot-bonded stainless steel flat and round wires and for spot-bonded FRCs, and no significant differences were identified among them. Higher force levels were reported for full-bonded metallic flat and round splints and the highest loads were recorded for full-bonded FRCs. At the maximum load, no significant differences were reported among spot- and full-bonded metallic splints and spot-bonded FRCs. The highest loads were reported for full bonded FRCs. The significant decrease in the rigidity of spot-bonded FRC splints if compared with full-bonded retainers suggests further tests in order to propose this technique for clinical use, as they allow physiologic tooth movement, thus presumably reducing the risk of ankylosis.
Highlights
Fiber reinforced composites (FRCs) were introduced in dentistry over 40 years ago
At maximum load (Figure 4—groups 13 to 18), no significant differences were reported among spot- and full-bonded metallic flat and round splints and spot-bonded FRCs (p > 0.05)
Previous studies have evaluated the load values of conventional and nanofifilled FRCs, showing values ranging from 10 to 50 NN [[66,2222,2233,3300,3322,3333]]. These values are in agreement with the results reported in the present investigation with full-bonded FRCs
Summary
Fiber reinforced composites (FRCs) were introduced in dentistry over 40 years ago. FRCs allow a high strength/weight and stiffness/weight if compared with other materials [3]. Fixed dental prostheses [8,9], root canal anchoring systems [10,11,12], fillings and core-built ups [13,14,15,16], removable devices [17,18], periodontal and trauma splints [19], orthodontic retainers [20], and orthodontic anchorage units [21] have been reported to be realized with FRCs. Even if FRCs’ high stiffness (33 and 44 N under 0.1 and 0.2 mm deflections, respectively) [22] can be useful for prosthodontic uses, this characteristic could
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
