International Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 11 , ISSUE 4 ( October-December, 2021 ) > List of Articles


A Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Strength of Natural Tooth Pontic Reinforced with Polyethylene-fiber Post vs Glass-fiber Post: An In Vitro Study

Vatsal Chauhan, Anjali Sharma, Pankaj Mishra, Santosh Singh, Anu Narang

Keywords : Interlig reinforcement fiber, Natural tooth pontic, Ribbond fiber, Splint material

Citation Information : Chauhan V, Sharma A, Mishra P, Singh S, Narang A. A Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Strength of Natural Tooth Pontic Reinforced with Polyethylene-fiber Post vs Glass-fiber Post: An In Vitro Study. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2021; 11 (4):178-182.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1346

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 04-04-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


Aim and objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the fracture strength of natural tooth pontic reinforced with polyethylene-fiber post vs glass-fiber post. One of the most conservative solutions for the replacement of missing anterior tooth can be using patient\'s own tooth as a pontic. As no laboratory procedures are required, it is well suited for patients who need an immediate replacement of tooth in esthetic zone. Materials and methods: Twenty polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) resin blocks were prepared. Two abutment teeth were embedded in each PMMA resin block. Twenty central incisors were sectioned at the level of cementoenamel junction using a diamond-cutting disk with water coolant and used as pontics. The samples were divided into two groups at random; group A—polyethylene (Ribbond) fiber post (n = 10) used to strengthen pontics and group B—glass (Interlig) reinforcement fiber post (n = 10) used to strengthen the pontics. The fracture strength of the samples was tested in universal testing machine. Student\'s t-test was done for statistical analysis to find the difference between two groups. Results: The mean fracture strength of polyethylene (Ribbond) fiber post was 56.7 ± 13.0 MPa and glass (Interlig) reinforcement fiber post was 38.56 ± 8.68 MPa. A significant difference was observed between mean fracture strength of polyethylene (Ribbond) fiber post and glass (Interlig) reinforcement fiber post (p-value = 0.002). Conclusion: Both the fiber reinforced splint materials are effective in stabilizing the natural tooth pontic. Ribbond fiber, a polyethylene fiber post, had better fracture strength than Interlig glass fiber post and can be used effectively for stabilization of the natural tooth pontic.

  1. Augusti D, Augusti G, Ionescu A, et al. Natural tooth pontic using recent adhesive technologies: an esthetic and minimally invasive prosthetic solution. Case Rep Dent 2020;2020:7619715. DOI: 10.1155/2020/7619715
  2. Al-Quran FA, Al-Ghalayini RF, Al-Zu'bi BN. Single-tooth replacement: factors affecting different prosthetic treatment modalities. BMC Oral Health 2011;11:34. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6831-11-34
  3. Kuijs R, van Dalen A, Roeters J, et al. The resin-bonded fixed partial denture as the first treatment consideration to replace a missing tooth. Int J Prosthodont 2016;29(4):337–339. DOI: 10.11607/ijp.4412
  4. Powell DB, Nichols JI, Yuodelis RA, et al. A comparison of wire- and Kevlar-reinforced provisional restorations. Int J Prosthodont 1994;7(1):81–89. PMID: 8179789.
  5. Kangasniemi I, Vallittu P, Meiers J, et al. Consensus statement on fiber-reinforced polymers: current status, future directions, and how they can be used to enhance dental care. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16(2):209. PMID: 12737256.
  6. Goldberg AJ, Burstone CJ. The use of continuous fiber reinforcement in dentistry. Dent Mater 1992;8(3):197–202. DOI: 10.1016/0109-5641(92)90083-o
  7. Shah R, Khare S, Tiku A. A comparative evaluation of flexibility and bond strength of stainless steel wire, glass fiber reinforced composite and polyethylene fiber reinforced composite used in splinting of traumatized permanent teeth: an in-vitro study. Int J Appl Dent Sci 2019;5(2)430–433. Corpus ID: 212697142.
  8. Kermanshah H, Motevasselian F. Immediate tooth replacement using fiber-reinforced composite and natural tooth pontic. Oper Dent 2010;35(2):238–245. DOI: 10.2341/09-136-S
  9. Vasques WF, Martins FV, Magalhães JC, et al. A low cost minimally invasive adhesive alternative for maxillary central incisor replacement. J Esthet Restor Dent 2018;30(6):469–473. DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12409
  10. Raj R, Mehrotra K, Narayan I, et al. Natural tooth pontic: an instant esthetic option for periodontally compromised teeth—a case series. Case Rep Dent 2016;2016:8502927. DOI: 10.1155/2016/8502927
  11. Wu CP, Tu YK, Lu SL, et al. Quantitative analysis of miller mobility index for the diagnosis of moderate to severe periodontitis - a cross-sectional study. J Dent Sci 2018;13(1):43–47. DOI: 10.1016/j.jds.2017.11.001
  12. Cho K, Wang G, Raju R, et al. Influence of surface treatment on the interfacial and mechanical properties of short S-glass fiber-reinforced dental composites. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 2019;11:32328–32338. DOI: 10.1021/acsami.9b01857
  13. Chong H, Chai J. Strength and mode of failure of unidirectional and bidirectional glass fiber-reinforced composite materials. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16(2):161–166. PMID: 12737248.
  14. Belli S, Erdemir A, Yildirim C. Reinforcement effect of polyethylene fibre in root-filled teeth: comparison of two restoration techniques. Int Endod J 2006;39(2):136–142. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2006.01057.x
  15. Lam R. Epidemiology and outcomes of traumatic dental injuries: a review of the literature. Aust Dent J 2016;61(S1):4–20. DOI: 10.1111/adj.12395
  16. Elangovan S, Avila-Ortiz G. Case selection is critical for successful outcomes following immediate implant placement in the esthetic zone. J Evid Based Dent Pract 2017;17(2):135–138. DOI: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2017.04.005
  17. Augusti D, Augusti G, Re D. Prosthetic restoration in the single-tooth gap: patient preferences and analysis of the WTP index. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25(11):1257–1264. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12264
  18. Suryavanshi HN, Moghe AG, Baonerkar HA, et al. Immediate tooth replacement by natural tooth pontic after tooth avulsion: our clinical experience. Int J Dent Med Res 2015;1(5):105–108.
  19. Kolbeck C, Rosentritt M, Behr M, et al. In vitro study of fracture strength and marginal adaptation of polyethylene-fibre-reinforced-composite versus glass-fibre-reinforced-composite fixed partial dentures. J Oral Rehabil 2002;29(7):668–674. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2002.00870.x
  20. Strassler H. Single visit natural tooth pontic bridge with fiber reinforcement ribbon. Tex Dent J 2007;124(1):110–113. PMID: 17380911.
  21. Bechir ES, Pacurar M, Hantoiu TA, et al. Aspects in effectiveness of glass- and polyethylene-fibre reinforced composite resin in periodontal splinting. Mater Plast 2016;53(1):104–109. Corpus ID: 42545771.
  22. Ramesh P, Mathew S, Murthy SB, et al. Efficacy of Ribbond and a fibre post on the fracture resistance of reattached maxillary central incisors with two fracture patterns: a comparative in vitro study. Dental Traumatol 2016;32(2):110–115. DOI: 10.1111/edt.12223
  23. Brauchli L, Pintus S, Steineck M, et al. Shear modulus of 5 flowable composites to the EverStick Ortho fiber-reinforced composite retainer: an in-vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135(1):54–58. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.11.020
  24. Vallittu PK. Ultra-high-modulus polyethylene ribbon as reinforcement for denture polymethyl methacrylate: a short communication. Dent Mater 1997;13(6):381–382. DOI: 10.1016/s0109-5641(97)80111-x
  25. Singla R, Grover R. Stabilizing periodontally compromized teeth with polyethylene fibre splint: a case report. Int J Clin Prev Dent 2015;11(2):125–128. DOI: 10.15236/ijcpd.2015.11.2.125
  26. Tayab T, Vizhi K, Srinivasan I. Space maintainer using fiber-reinforced composite and natural tooth – a non-invasive technique. Dent Traumatol 2011;27:159–162. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-9657.2010.00972.x
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.