Issues‎ > ‎vol1n1‎ > ‎


Comparison of volume loss of tooth structure between traditional and conservative FPD designs

*Abdulsalam Al-Zahawi, **Effrosyni Tsitrou & **Richard van Noort

*College of Dentistry, University of Sulaimani

**Academic Unit of Restora*ve Den*stry, School of Clinical Den*stry,University of Sheffield.



Objectives: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the amount of tooth structure that is sacrificed with the conventional preparation of a 3-unit bridge and compare this with a variety of more conservative 3-unit bridge designs.

Materials and methods: Fifty typodont Frasaco teeth were used to prepare five 3-unit FPD preparation designs (25 lower right first premolar teeth and 25 lower right first molar teeth). One conventional full coverage crown retainer, two different innovative partial coverage crown retainer and two different Inlay design retainer. The volume of tooth structure lost was measured for each design and statistically analyzed.

One-way ANOVA with Tukey’s test statistical analysis of the results at (p˂ 0.001), revealed that there was a highly significant effect of the preparation design on the volume loss of tooth structure. Volume tooth structure saved design IV and V was about twice that saved with the partial coverage crown in design II and III.

The amount of tooth structure sacrificed in the proposed conservative FPD designs is significantly less than that calculated for the traditional design.

Keywords: Bridge design, Conservative, Resin bonded ceramic, Tooth structure.


1.      Julien CK, Buschang HP, Throckmorton SG, Dechow CP. Normal masticatory performsnce in young adult and children. Archs Oral Biol. 1996;41:69-75.

2.      Hattori Y, Satoh C, Kunieda T, Endoh R, Hisamatsu H, Watanabe M. Bite forces and their resultants during forceful intercuspal clenching in h u m a n s . J o u r n a l o f B i o m e c h a n i c s .


3.      Lepley CR, Throckmorton GS, Ceen RF, Buschang PH. Relative contributions of occlusion, maximum bite force, and chewing cycle kinematics to masticatory performance. American Journal of Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2011;139:606-13.

4.      Edward AM. All-Ceramic Alternatives to Conventional Metal-Ceramic Restorations. Compendium. 1998;19( 3).

5.      Pospiech P, Rammelsberg P, Unsold F. A new design for all-ceramic resin-bonded fixed partial dentures. Quintessence Int. 1996;37:753-8.

6.      Rosenstiel SF, Land MF, Fujimoto J, Cockerill JJ. Contemporary fixed prosthodontics: Mosby St. Louis, MO; 2006.

7.      Clausen JO, Abou Tara M, Kern M. Dynamic fatigue and fracture resistance of non-retentive allceramic full-coverage molar restorations. Influence of ceramic material and preparation design. Dent Mater. 2010;26:533-8.

8.      Christensen GJ. Has tooth structure been replaced. J Am Dent Assoc. 2002;133:103-5.

9.      Edelhoff D, Dent DM, Sorensen JA. Tooth structure removal Associated with various preparation design for posterior teeth. international journal of periodontics and restorative dentistry. 2002;22:241-9.

10.    Ramp MH, Mccracken MS, B.Mazer R. Tooth structure loss apical to preparations for fixed partial dentures when using self-limiting burs. 79. 1998:491-4.

11.    Murphy F, McDonald A, Petrie A, Palmer G,

Setchell D. Coronal tooth structure in root-treated teeth prepared for complete and partial coverage restorations. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation. 2009;36:451-61.

12.    Ivoclar V. IPS e.max all ceramic all you need clinical guide/ glass ceramic preparation / IPS e.max CAD /Scientific Documentation.10.

13.    Shillingburg HT, Sather DA, Wilson EL, Cain JR, Mitchell DL, Blanco LJ, et al. Fundamentals of fixed prosthodontics Fourth edition ed. USA: Quintessence Publishing Co.Inc; 2012.

14.    Callister WD, Rethwisch DG. Materials science and engineering: an introduction: Wiley New York; 2007.


15.    Edelhoff D, Sorensen JA. Tooth structure removal associated with various preparation designs for anterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent. 2002;87:503-9. 

Full Article - PDF