Fixed Prosthodontics and Operative Dentistry

Mechanics of tensile and shear stress generation in fixed

partial denture retainers
Peter Seaton, LDS RCS (Eng)
Dorchester, England

Movements caused by the application of chewing loads to a fixed partial denture

(FPD) are predictable. There are translational and rotational movements of the
FPD and flexure of the structure. The location and magnitude of tensile and shear
stresses affecting cement within retainers during mastication is related to the type
of movement and determined by differences in mobility of abutments at each end of
the FPD, length of span, and point of chewing load. The incidence of cement failure
could be reduced with improved strategic stres* resistance. (J PROSTHET DEN.I’
1994;71:237-244.)

F. allures in retention of fixed partial dentures
(FPDs) have been well documented,’ and they OCC;X
despite selection of complete crowns for retainers that
provide resistance to displacement.” These failures c,m
follow repeated application of tensile or shear stresses to
cement with relatively low tensile strength? 4 HowevcJr,
sparse detail has been published regarding these stresses c)r
the forces that cause them.
Force distribution within the FPD caused by applied t x-
ternal forces can be deduced similar to other structures. In
this respect FPDs and periodontal membranes are Hexilble
structures:‘,” For that reason, compression of a food bolus
by the occlusal surface of the FPD during masticatit)n
causes movements, which cease when the occlusal load is
fully opposed by forces generated within periodontal
membranes and applied to the roots of abutment tee1 h.
The resulting pattern of internal force distribution varies
according to the type of movement and determines the tea-
ture, location, and magnitude of the stresses productsd.
These can include tensile and shear stresses affecting
cement, which occur when one surface of a retainer is ( e-
mented to an abutment tooth that is being forced to rottite
while another surface is rigidly connected to a pontic tl at
is resisting rotation.
Movements under load concomitant with the generatiim
of tensile stresses within retainers are rotation of the Fl’D
to a mesiodistal axis, twisting of the pontic around a sin-
ilar axis, and bending of the pontic of a posterior FPD in
a sagittal plane. These movements are predictable becallse
they are determined by the point of application and I he
direction of the occlusal load, the shape and stiff’ness of 1he
constituent parts of the FPD, and the mobility of : he
“General practice.
Copyright ’ 1994 by The Editorial Council of THK .fOl’RUl
PROSTHETIC DENYWNY.
0022-3913/94/$3.00 + 0. 10/l/51608
abutments. All of the movements can create independent
stresses that are responsible for cement failures. This arti-
cle identifies the possible locations of these stresses, so that
resistance measures can be improved,
Tensile stress generation during rotation
of an FPD around a mesiodistal axis
Effect on a single unsupported tooth. Lateral gliding
is common during mastication,’ so that the resultant
chewing force is often at an angle to the axis of the tooth
(Fig. 1). Because the occlusal load, represented by force Fl,
is perpendicular to the lingual cusp and lies in a coronal
plane, the effect on the tooth is twofold. The tooth is de-
pressed along a path, Ml, similar to the direction of the
applied force. This movement causes the generation of op-
posing forces within the periodontal membrane until the
load is opposed by forces represented by force F2. Forces
Fl and F2 are equal, parallel, and oppositely directed, so
that they constitute a couple, creating a torque or turning
effect. As a result the tooth rotates in the direction of ar-
rows M2, in a counterclockwise direction (Fig. 1). This ro-
tation around a mesiodistal axis is abated when balanced
hy a clockwise couple consisting of forces within mem-
branes exemplified by forces F3 and F4.
An occlusal load with a facial or a lingual component ap-
plied to a single unsupported tooth causes two distinct
types of simultaneous movement: (1 j translational move-
ment of the tooth similar to the applied force, and (2) ro-
tation of the tooth around a mesiodistal axis t.hrough the
periodontal membrane, which is perceived as horizontal
movement of the crown.
Effect on FPD abutments. Responses of a single un-
supported tooth are modified when the load is applied to
an FPD abutment. A three-unit posterior FPD (Fig. 2) was
used as an example with a pontic that was firmly connected
to a single mesial premolar abutment and a single distal
oh
molar abutment with a complete crown at both mesial and
distal surfaces. After application of’ load Fl to its occlusal

MARCH 1994

M2
Fig. 1. Forces and movements affecting single unsup-
ported tooth subjected to chewing load.
surface, the mesial abutment is depressed as a single tooth
and attempts to move the rest of the FPD and the distal
abutment in a similar direction. The distal abutment
shares in resistance to this movement so that forces are
generated within its periodontal membrane to oppose a
part of force Fl. The remaining opposition to this applied
load is the result of forces represented in part by force F2,
which are generated within the mesial abutment’s period-
ontal membrane.
Force F2 (Fig. 3) and its share of force Fl constitute a
couple depicted by curved arrow Cl, which applies torque
to the mesial abutment. The mesial abutment then rotates
around a mesiodistal axis, Xl, forcing the rest of the FPD,
including the distal abutment, to rotate. Because they are
both rotating around a common axis, opposition to this
motion is shared by two abutments.
One abutment is normally firmer than the other because
of common variations in mobility of teeth for the same
arch;s single-rooted teeth generally more mobile than mul-
238
SEATON
tirooted ones.g This firmer abutment provides the greater
opposition to rotation. For instance, if the premolar was
more mobile than the molar, the greater opposition to cou-
ple Cl would be caused by forces generated in the molar’s
periodontal membrane and represented by a couple, C3.
The dominant couples around the mesiodistal axis pres-
ently applied to abutments at either end of the FPD are
couple Cl to the premolar and couple C3 to the molar. Each
applies torque, but their directions are dissimilar; thus the
entire FPD is subjected to stress, which includes tensile
stress in cement.
A chewing load can cause rotation of the FPD around a
mesiodistal axis through the roots of the abutment teeth
until it is stopped by resistance from the periodontal
membranes. One abutment (for example, a molar) is nor-
mally firmer than the other abutment (for example, a pre-
molar) and thus provides the greater resistance. A chewing
load near the mobile end of the FPD then causes rotating
forces (a couple) to be applied to the mobile tooth while the
greater part of the opposition to this rotation is generated
at the other, firmer, end of the FPD. In effect one end of
the FPD is being turned while the other end is being held
firm. As a result the entire FPD, including cement, is sub-
jected to stresses.
Forces generated in periodontal membranes of
abutments. The generation of these stresseswas detailed
to determine factors that affect them. The diagrammatic
coronal section of the premolar (Fig. 4) illustrates that the
line of action of force Fl does not coincide with the center
of resistance to movement of the premolar’s periodontal
membrane at a possible position Pl. Therefore, conven-
tionally, the mechanical effect of force Fl at point Pl can
be represented by a coplaner equivalent force system that
consists of an equal and parallel force, Fla, and a couple,
Cl. This couple has a magnitude equal to the product of
force Fl, and perpendicular distance, Dl, from the point to
line of action of the force. Thus couple Cl = Fl X Dl.
In response to couple Cl, the premolar rotates around an
axis that passesthrough point Pl and perpendicular to the
plane of the applied force. This axis is then parallel to the
arch of teeth in that region and thus passes close to the
center of resistance to movement of the distal abutment, at
a possible position P2 (Fig. 3). Consequently, the entire
structure would rotate around a common mesiodistal axis,
Xl, passing through these centers of resistance to move-
ment. Because of this rotation, couples C2 and C3 are gen-
erated by periodontal membranes of mesial and distal
abutments, respectively. They are both perpendicular to
axis Xl and opposed to couple Cl and are the result of
forces exemplified by forces F3 (Fig. 4) and F4 mesially and
forces F5 (Fig. 5) and F6 distally, as illustrated in the di-
agrammatic coronal section of the molar.
In response to force Fla (Fig. 2) the premolar is de-
pressed in its socket, which leads to the generation by its
periodontal membrane of an opposing force, F2. Simulta-
neously the rest of the FPD starts to move along a parallel
VOLUME 71 NUMBER 3
SEATON
Fig. 2. Forces applied after rotation of FPD around tilted faciolingual axis through mo-
lar’s roots.
path. The molar’s periodontal membrane resists this move-
ment, so that the FPD rotates around a tilted faciolingual
axis, X2, through the roots of the molar, and perpendicu-
lar to the plane of the applied force. Couple C5, generated
by the molar in opposition to this rotation, acts in conjunc-
tion with applied load Fl, which causes further depression
of the distal abutment parallel to the premolar.
At the center of resistance of the molar’s periodontal
membrane, a part of force Fl may now be represented by
an equivalent force system consisting of a parallel force, F7,
and couple C4. These are opposed by force F8, which is
generated within the molar’s periodontal membrane by
depression of the molar; and by couple C5, resulting from
forces exemplified by forces F9 and FlO, as a result of ro-
tation of the molar around axis X2. Force Fl is now
opposed by a combination of force F2a, which is equal to
force F2, and force F8a, which is equal to force F8, so that
opposition to the occlusal load is shared by the abutments.
After application of an occlusal load near the mobile end
of the FPD, both abutments are depressed, but the mobile
tooth is depressed further than the firmer one. In addition,
the FPD rotates around two axes. It rotates around a tilted
faciolingual axis through the roots of the firmer abutment
and also around a mesiodistal axis. Two abutments share
the resistance to these movements, and the points and di-
rections of the forces generated within their periodontal
membranes and applied to the structure can be deduced.
Stress generation within &tubers. Forces applied
to the structure after cessation of movement may be rep-
resented as: force Fl applied to the occlusal surface; forces
F2, F3, and F4 applied to the root of the premolar, and
MARCH 1994
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
forces F5, F6, F8, F9, and FlO applied to the roots of the
molar.
Because movement of the FPD has ceased, the sum total
of the applied forces is zero. Despite this, their diverse
points of application cause the generation of a complex
pattern of forces within the FPD. An indication of the dis-
tribution of these internal forces in relation to cement may
be obtained with reference to arbitrary points P3 (Fig. 6)
and P4 (Fig. 7) within the mesial and distal retainers. At
these locations a part of each applied force can be repre-
sented by an equivalent force system.
Forces around point P3. Around point P3 within the
mesial retainer the applied forces may be represented as
follows: force Fl may be represented by an equal and par-
allel force, Flb, and couple, C6; force F2 by an equal and
parallel force, F2a, and couple, C7; forces F3 (Fig 4) and F4
may be represented by a couple, C8; forces F5 (Fig 5) and
F6 by a couple, C9. The mesial retainer is therefore inter-
posed between forces that are applied to the root of the
mesial abutment and cause couples C7 and C8 and forces
that are applied to the pontic and the roots of the distal
abutment and cause couples C6 and C9. Some of these
couples are in opposition, which can lead to stress genera-
tion within the retainer, affecting cement.
The sum of the two counterclockwise couples around
point P3, C6, and C7 equals the sum of the two clockwise
couples, C8 and C9; but each of these couples has its own
individual value. In some situations one of the clockwise
couples can be substantially larger than the other clockwise
couple and dominant, whereas either of the counterclock-
wise couples could be dominant. The type and location of
239
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY SEATON

Fig. 3. Couples applied after rotation of FPD around mesiodistal axis.

Table I. Effects of different combinations of dominant The factors that influence the magnitude of these cou-
couples in mesial retainer ples and the resultant stresses are the following:
Effect on cement
1. The difference in mobility of abutments. Couple C9
Domiaaat is a substantial one and couple C8 insignificant when the
couples Compression Tension abutment near the application of the load is considerably
more mobile.
C6 and C8 Lingual Facial
2. The length of FPD. The magnitude of couple C7 is
C6 and C9 Nil Nil
C7 and C8 Nil Nil
reduced by force F8a (Fig 2). This has a value equal to cou-
C7 and C9 Facial Lingual ple C5 divided by the length of span, which is greatest in
a short-span FPD. For that reason maximal values of cou-
ple C7 are recorded in a long-span FPD.
3. The periodontal membrane. The position of the cen-
stresses generated within the mesial retainer during rota- ter of resistance to movement of the periodontal membrane
tion of the FPD around a mesiodistal axis depend on which of the more mobile abutment determines the length, D3,
of the clockwise couples and which of the opposing coun- and the magnitude of couple C7. This couple is therefore
terclockwise couples are dominant at the time, because greater in mobile teeth that have exhibited apical move-
several combinations are possible (Table I). ment of that center because of reduced supporting bone.
For substantial stress generation both of the dominant 4. The point of load application. Force Fl, related to all
couples must be large, while the two other couples are other forces and couples, represents a chewing load applied
minimal. In this instance, the maximal value of couple C7 to the mobile abutment. It could also represent the mobile
is always greater, but could be substantially greater, than abutment’s share of a load that was applied at other points
the other counterclockwise couple, C6, because distance D3 along the span. Because the magnitude of this share
is greater than distance D2. depends directly on the point of application to the more
The greatest tensile stresses following FPD rotation mobile tooth, it was greatest when the load was applied di-
around a mesiodistal axis are then generated in situations rectly and least when applied to the firmer abutment.
when couple C7 is the dominant counterclockwise couple 5. The occlusion. The magnitude of couple Cl, and
and couple C9 is the dominant clockwise couple. therefore all couples around mesiodistal axis, depends on

240 VOLUME 71 NUMBER 3

SEATON
Fig. 4. Forces affecting premolar after movements.
distance Dl (Fig. 4). An occlusion with steep angles near
the mobile abutment will permit the application of loads
with a large horizontal component and result in a pro-
tracted distance.
Forces around point P4. Around point P4 (Fig. 7), within
the distal retainer, couple ClO, because of forces Fl (Fig.
4) and F2 minus forces F3 and F4, is opposed by couple Cl1
(Fig. 7) as a result of forces F5 (Fig. 5) and F6, which causes
compression lingually and tension facially. In different cir-
cumstances, opposition of force Fl (Fig 2) to forces F8, F9,
and FlO, would cause tension in the distal part of the ce-
ment. The factors that influence the magnitude of these
stresses are:
1. The size of couple Cl1 (Fig. 7). Tensile stress at the
lateral surface of the distal retainer is greatest when cou-
ples Cl0 and Cl1 are large. This coincides with the dom-
inance of couples C7 (Fig. 6) and C9.
2. The length of the span. A large force F8 (Fig. 2)
caused by a short pontic will result in substantial tension
in the distal part of the distal retainer’s cement.
Each of the forces applied to the structure after cessation
of movement contributes to the complex pattern of inter-
nal forces, some of which combine to create couples. Two
clockwise and two counterclockwise couples are generated
in coronal planes within the retainer of the mobile abut-
ment that is close to the occlusal load. Each couple has an
MARCH 1994
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
Fig. 5. Forces affecting molar after rotation around me-
siodistal axis.
individual magnitude, determined by the length of span of
the FPD, the mobility of the abutment teeth, and the point
and direction of the occlusal load, so that their magnitudes
vary from one FPD to another. They can also vary within
the same FPD when the point or direction of the chewing
force alters. Interaction of these couples can result in ten-
sile stresses,which are always confined to just a part of each
retainer, while compression is applied to another part.
The greatest tensile stresses in cement from rotation of
an FPD around a mesiodistal axis occur during occlusal
force with a large horizontal component applied close to the
mobile abutment of a long-span FPD that has an appre-
ciably firmer second abutment. Generated simultaneously
at both ends of the FPD, tension is confined to the facial
part of the retainer of one abutment and to the lingual part
of the retainer of the other abutment.
Stress after twisting of the pontic around a
mesiodistal axis
The pontic can twist as a result of the application of a
clockwise couple Cl1 (Fig. 7) at one end and a counter-
clockwise couple C7 (Fig. 6) at the other. The more mobile
abutment then rotates around a mesiodistal axis relative to
the firmer abutment. The diagrammatic coronal portion of
part of the mobile tooth (Fig. 8) illustrates this relative ro-
tation around point Pl through an angle Zl. Point P3 in the
retainer has moved somewhat horizontally to a new posi-
tion, P3a, as a result. This horizontal movement is also il-
lustrated in Fig. 9, a horizontal section to depict only the
positions of points P3 and P3a together with a vertical axis
through point P2. This movement has resulted in rotation
241
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY SEATON

Fig. 7. Forces affecting distal retainer after rotation

around mesiodistal axis.

P3a _ _ _ - - -------- P3

___------ Zl
Fig. 6. Forces affecting mesial retainer after movements.

of each abutment through a horizontal angle, 22, relative

to the supporting bone.
Consequently, couples Cl2 and Cl3 have been generated
in horizontal planes within the retainers, opposed by cou-
ples Cl4 and Cl5 because of forces generated in the peri-
odontal membranes. The circular cross-sectional retainer
shape has shear stresses induced throughout its cement.
The effect could be greatest in a long-span FPD because a
long pontic is more readily affected.
Some of the couples that cause stress in retainers during
rotation of the FPD around a mesiodistal axis can also
cause the pontic to twist around a similar axis. As a result
the mobile abutment rotates further around this axis than
the firm one, while the pontic additionally rotates around
a vertical axis through the roots of the firm abutment. This
induces shear stresses around the axis of both abutment
teeth, affecting cement in the retainers.
Tensile stress from bending of the pontic in
a sagittal plane
It has been widely accepted that deflection of the pontic
of a posterior FPD in a sagittal plane during load can cause
tensile stresses within retainers, as illustrated in the
diagrammatic sagittal section of the FPD (Fig. 10). A load,
Fll, is shown applied to the occlusal surface, and this is
_-------- Pl
Fig. 8. Rotation of premolar in coronal plane caused by
twisting of pontic.
opposed by an equal and opposite force, shared by the pe-
riodontal membranes of the abutments. Consequently the
pontic bends in a sagittal plane, forcing each abutment to
rotate around a faciolingual axis. As a result couples Cl6
around point P3, and Cl7 around point P4, because of de-
flection of the pontic, are opposed by couples Cl8 and Cl9
respectively, as a result of resistance to rotation by the pe-
riodontal membranes.
These couples act in sagittal planes, applying compres-
sion to the cement nearest the pontic and tension to the
cement furthest from the pontic. The effect could be
greatest in a long-span FPD, because long pontics flex more
readily than short pontics.
Stress magnitude
Forces responsible for tensile and shear stresses in FPD
retainers during mastication are generated in periodontal

242 VOLUME ‘71 NUMBER 3

SEATON
Fig. 9. Rotation of FPD in horizontal plane caused by twisting of pontic.
Fig. 10. Opposing couples within retainers as a result of bending of pontic in sagittal
plane.
membranes during rotation of abutment teeth that accom-
panies simultaneous translational movement in response
to a chewing load. However, limited detail has been pub-
lished regarding forces generated in that manner. There-
fore, no numerical values can be assigned to them, neither
can the resultant stresses be quantified.
It can be hypothesized that certain stresses may be large
in specific clinical circumstances including the mastication
of tough food, which is often accompanied by appreciable
lateral movements.s Extensive stresses would be generated
during rotation of the FPD around a mesiodistal axis pro-
vided the FPD has a long span and one abutment is more
mobile than the other. Conversely, if both abutments are
equally firm, or both are mobile because of periodontal
disease, stresses may be innocuous with an acceptable
prognosis for the cement.
CLINICAL APPLICATIONS
Tensile stress generated in the cement of complete
crowns for retainers of conventional FPDs during mastica-
tion is the result of couples acting in any of three planes,
each perpendicular to the others. Measures to provide re-
sistance are:
MARCH 1994
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
1. Stress after rotation of the FPD around a me
&distal axis. As a result of couples acting in coronal
planes, stress occurs at facial or lingual surfaces of retain-
ers. To provide resistance, the tooth preparation’s facial
and lingual axial surfaces should be as near parallel as pos-
sible. Mesial or distal grooves can be alternatively pre-
pared.
2. Stress after twisting of the pontic around a me-
&distal axis. This causes stress acting in planes per-
pendicular to the axis of the abutments. To provide resis-
tance, each retainer must have an antirotational shape, and
its cross section should not be circular, especially if the
abutment is narrow. Grooves in axial surfaces provide re-
sistance to these stresses.
3. Stress after bending of the pontic in a sagittal
plane. As a result of couples acting in sagittal planes,
tension occurs at mesial or distal surfaces of retainers. To
provide resistance, the tooth preparation’s mesial and dis-
tal axial surfaces should be as parallel as possible. Facial or
lingual grooves can be alternatively prepared.
Damage to cement attributed to stresses generated dur-
ing rotation or twisting of FPDs around the mesiodistal
axis can also be reduced by decreasing the occlusal angles
243
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY SEATON

of the FPD and its opposing teeth, but this measure does gineering at the University of Southampton,for his help and ad-
not have to be uniform along the span. Angles can be vice regarding the use of engineering methods.
reduced progressively from the firmer end, with shallowest REFERENCES
cusps at the more mobile abutment. Stresses would be di-
1. Foster LV. Failed conventional bridge work from general dental prac-
minished while the established occlusion is minimally
tice: clinical aspects and treatment needs of 142 cases. Br Dent J
altered. 1990,168:199-201.
2. Roberts DH. The failure of retainers in bridge prostheses. Br Dent J
CONCLUSIONS 1970;128:117-24.
3. Mizrahi E, Smith DC. The bond strength of a zinc polycarboxylate ce-
Stresses within FPDs during mastication are caused by ment. Br Dent J 1969;127:410-4.
interaction of various forces. These consist of applied oc- 4. Grieve AR. A study of dental cements. Br Dent J 1969;127:405-10.
5. Leinfelder KF, Servais WJ, O’Brien WJ. Mechanical properties of high
clusal load and reactions of periodontal membranes of fusing gold alloys. J PROSTHET DENT 1969;21:523-8.
abutments to the resultant movements of the structure. 6. Parfitt GJ. The dynamics of a tooth in function. J Periodontol
Tensile and shear stresses affecting cement within retain- 1961;32:102-7.
7. Ahlgren J. Masticatory movements in man. In: Anderson DJ, Matthews
ers are generated during rotation of abutment teeth. The
B, eds. Mastication: proceedings of a symposium. Bristol, England: John
location of these stresses, and an indication of their mag- Wright & Sons, 1976:119-30.
nitude, are predictable because they depend on factors a. Rudd KD, O’Leary TJ, Stumpf AJ. Horizontal tooth mobility in care-
fully screened subjects. Periodontics 1964;2:65-8.
such as differences in mobility of abutments, length of 9. Muhlemann HR. Tooth mobility: a review of clinical aspects and
span, and point of application of the chewing load. research findings. J Periodontol 1967;38:666-713.
The incidence of cement failures could be reduced with
Reprint requests to:
strategic stress resistance at each location, by anticipation DR. PETER SEATON
of the tensile or shear stresses. THREE TRINITY STREET
DORCHESTER, DOR~ET
DTl 1TT
I thank Professor Howard G. Allen, Professor of Structural En- ENGLAND

244 VOLUME 71 NUMBER 3