No abstract

No abstract

This study investigated the strength characteristics of various composites (Tetric Ceram, Tetric Flow, Prisma AP.H, Synergy Duo Shade, Synergy Compact, and Z 100) and compomers (Compoglass, Compoglass F, Dyract AP, F 2000) that were applied in a Class V cavity of a maxillary central incisor. The study was conducted by using a 3-dimensional finite element approach and in the study ansys package program was used. The tooth model had 294 elements and 420 nodes. The teeth considered were assumed to be subjected to an incisal load of 200 N acting at an angle of 26 degrees with the longitudinal axis of the tooth but the effects of different loading angles and different loads were also analysed. Hence, the loads of 100 and 400 N and the loading angles of 0 degrees representing bruxism and 90 degrees representing a traumatic load were also taken into consideration. The effects of the cavity preparation size were also studied. It was determined that any increase in the loading angle and/or the amount of the load resulted in a proportional increase in the stresses developed in the tooth. Furthermore it was also verified that, as a cavity weakens the tooth structure by creating a discontinuity in an intact tooth, the larger sized cavity preparations inevitably cause larger stresses to be developed in the tooth. Strictly from the mechanical point of view, the stresses developed in the restored teeth were determined to be inversely proportional with the modulus of elasticity of the restorative materials. Therefore within the scope of the study Z 100 was found to be superior to the other materials concerned.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the stress distribution in a maxillary central incisor restored with various post-core applications. The study used a three-dimensional finite element method. The tooth was assumed to be endodontically treated with a porcelain crown. Two different sizes of Flexi-post, Cera-post, and Composipost were compared for 200 N palatal and incisal loads. It was determined that, purely from the point of view of strength considerations, core material was determined to be of greater importance than post material or size. Higher elastic moduli of the posts resulted in lower stresses throughout the tooth.

The aim of this study was to compare the in vitro caries inhibition of various resin-based materials. Class V cavities were prepared in twenty-five freshly extracted human premolar teeth which were then restored with glass-ionomer cement (Chemfill II), compomer (Compoglass F, Dyract AP) and composite resin (Tetric Ceram and Z 100). The teeth were submerged in an acid gel for 6 weeks. Each specimen was sectioned. These sections were left in water for 24 hours, and then examined using polarized light microscopy. The lesion consisted of two parts, the outer surface lesion and the cavity wall lesion. There was no significant difference in the body depth of the outer lesion and in the depth of the wall lesion among teeth restored with Compoglass F, Dyract AP and Chemfill II (P > 0.05). There was a significant difference between those restored with Z 100 and Tetric Ceram (P < 0.05). The length of the wall lesion for the teeth restored with Chemfill II was significantly smaller than that in the remaining groups (P < 0.05). The length of the wall lesion for teeth restored with Tetric Ceram and Z 100 was significantly higher than in the remaining groups (P < 0.05). These results suggest that composite materials and compomer provide less caries inhibition than glass-ionomer cements.