Compression of stress distribution in pull out and push out bond strength test set ups: A 3-D finite element stress analysis

0 0 1 220 1260 demomac1111@gmail.com 10 2 1478 14.0 96 800x600 Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the stress distribution in pull out and push out test set ups using finite element analysis, and to highlight some parameters that might have important influence on the results. Methods: Three dimensional finite element analysis was performed using SolidWorks® 2005 3D CAD software. Model configurations were based on published experimental pull out and push out test set ups; therefore, in the push out test set up three different thicknesses of root slices (1, 2 and 3 mm) were modeled. Vertical tensile and compressive loads were applied in pull out and push out set up, respectively. COSMOSWorks™ 2005 software was used to compute the local Von Mises stresses for each of the models at the interface area. Then the patterns of stress distribution in studied models were compared. Results: Stress distribution was non-uniform in pull out model and pronounced stress concentration was observed at cervical one-third of the root and cement layer. In 1mm push out model, stress was distributed uniformly but by increasing the thickness of the root segment, stress concentrated at the upper end of the interface that was near to the loading point. Significance: Highly non-uniform stress may develop at the adhesive interface when the pull-out test is performed on entire post or the push out test is performed on thick root segments. Therefore, 1 mm root segments were preferred to achieve true bond strength measurements.

[1]  J. Orr,et al.  Comparative study of four glass ionomer luting cements during post pull-out tests. , 1994, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[2]  Y. Takayama,et al.  Relationship between the stress distribution and the shape of the alveolar residual ridge--three-dimensional behaviour of a lower complete denture. , 2001, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[3]  Á. Della Bona,et al.  Shear vs. Tensile Bond Strength of Resin Composite Bonded to Ceramic , 1995, Journal of dental research.

[4]  J. Gallo,et al.  In vitro evaluation of the retention of composite fiber and stainless steel posts. , 2002, Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists.

[5]  J. Hodges,et al.  Nominal Shear or Fracture Mechanics in the Assessment of Composite-Dentin Adhesion? , 2000, Journal of dental research.

[6]  P. Ausiello,et al.  Fracture resistance of endodontically-treated premolars adhesively restored. , 1997, American journal of dentistry.

[7]  M. Gagliani,et al.  Adhesive post-endodontic restorations with fiber posts: push-out tests and SEM observations. , 2002, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[8]  M. C. Lee,et al.  Effects of posts on dentin stress distribution in pulpless teeth. , 1992, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[9]  F. Tay,et al.  The adhesion between fiber posts and root canal walls: comparison between microtensile and push-out bond strength measurements. , 2004, European journal of oral sciences.

[10]  J M Leary,et al.  Influence of post dimension on stress distribution in dentin. , 1996, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[11]  M. Tyas,et al.  Effect of cross-sectional surface area on bond strengths between resin and dentin. , 1998, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[12]  R. H. Roydhouse Punch-Shear Test for Dental Purposes , 1970, Journal of dental research.

[13]  I. C. Howard,et al.  A critique of bond strength measurements. , 1989, Journal of dentistry.

[14]  A. Caputo,et al.  Endodontic dowel retention with resinous cements. , 1992, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[15]  Antonio Apicella,et al.  Effect of adhesive layer properties on stress distribution in composite restorations--a 3D finite element analysis. , 2002, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[16]  D Assif,et al.  Biomechanical considerations in restoring endodontically treated teeth. , 1994, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[17]  J. V. von Fraunhofer,et al.  Retention of prefabricated posts by cements and resins. , 1985, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[18]  D. McComb,et al.  Mechanical and physical properties of contemporary dental luting agents. , 2003, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[19]  J. P. Duncan,et al.  Retention of parallel-sided titanium posts cemented with six luting agents: an in vitro study. , 1998, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[20]  D. Retief,et al.  In vitro investigation and evaluation of dentin bonding agents. , 1988, American journal of dentistry.

[21]  F. García-Godoy,et al.  Clinical evaluation of fiber-reinforced epoxy resin posts and cast post and cores. , 2000, American journal of dentistry.

[22]  G. Oilo Bond strength testing--what does it mean? , 1993, International dental journal.

[23]  C. Davidson,et al.  An investigation into the quality of dentine bonding systems for accomplishing a durable bond. , 1993, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[24]  G Zappini,et al.  Finite element analysis of a glass fibre reinforced composite endodontic post. , 2002, Biomaterials.

[25]  S. Belli,et al.  Stress Analysis of a Maxillary Central Incisor Restored with Different Posts , 2007, European journal of dentistry.

[26]  L. H. Burnett,et al.  Effect of the activation mode of post adhesive cementation on push-out bond strength to root canal dentin. , 2007, Quintessence international.

[27]  A Versluis,et al.  Why do Shear Bond Tests Pull Out Dentin? , 1997, Journal of dental research.