An in vitro Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of endodontically treated Teeth with Different Restorative Materials

Abstract

Aims The aim of the present study is to compare and assess the fracture resistance of root canal treated teeth with different restorative materials. Materials and methods The present in vitro study was carried out on seventy-five freshly extracted, noncarious, single-canal human lower-first premolars with similar anatomic characteristics. Teeth were randomly assigned to five groups with 15 teeth being present in each group. Group I is control group (no alteration done), group II is restored with silver amalgam after endodontic therapy, group III is restored with posterior composite after endodontic therapy, group IV is restored with posterior glass ionomer cement (GIC) after endodontic therapy, and group V is restored with miracle mix after endodontic therapy. Universal testing machine was used to assess the fracture strength. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) test followed by Tukey's post hoc test were used to determine the significant difference between each group. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant. Results The mean fracture resistance of control group showed highest fracture resistance with a mean Newton of 1083.33 ± 136.78. Among the restorative material, the highest fracture resistance was shown by teeth restored by composite (845.46 ± 47.36), followed by silver amalgam (845.46 ± 47.36). There was statistically significant difference among all the restorative materials compared with the control group (p < 0.05). However, among the teeth restored with silver amalgam and miracle mix, there was no statistical significance (p > 0.05). Conclusion The present study concludes that composites are found to be having more fracture resistance followed by silver amalgam on endodontically treated premolar teeth. Clinical significance Restoring nonvital teeth represents a major challenge for clinicians as they are extensively damaged due to caries and endodontic access preparations. With various restorative materials in the market, it becomes difficult for the clinician to choose the better restorative material for postendodontic restoration. How to cite this article Sangwan B, Rishi R, Seal M, Jain K, Dutt P, Talukdar P. An in vitro Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of endodontically treated Teeth with Different Restorative Materials. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(7):549-552.

Effect of Delayed Endodontic Sealing with Dentin Biomodification on Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Teeth

“…The fracture loads were recorded in Newtons. 10 Fractured specimens were evaluated for the nature of fractures under a dental operating microscope at 1× magnification (Labomed, Los Angeles, CA, U.S.A). Fracture modes were categorized as restorable and unrestorable.…”

Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Premolars with Different Access Preparations and Coronal Cavity Designs – An In Vitro Study

“…The selected teeth fulfilled the inclusion criteria which were; fresh extraction with fully developed apices, no anomaly, two root canals and no evidence of root resorption. While the exclusion criteria included teeth with caries, restorations and apparent fracture lines or fissures (17) . All teeth were radiographically examined to assure matching the inclusion criteria.…”

“…It is well known that successful root canal treatment is neither reached by debriding necrotic pulpal tissue nor establishing a tight apical seal but also by the re-participation of the affected tooth in the function that it was created to perform. Such performance is totally dependent on the final restoration of the coronal part of the tooth (3,4) .…”

“…According to literature, the main causes of mechanical failure of root canal treated teeth are the overextended non conservative coronal design, access cavity and/or intra-radicular preparations (4) . The ideal protocol for restoring root canal treated teeth remain a controversial issue till the moment.…”