Critical review of noncarious cervical lesions

Venkatesan, Keerthi; Kuzhanchinathan, Manigandan; Prakash, Prashanth

doi:10.4103/srmjrds.srmjrds_5_18

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Besides esthetic consequences, advanced NCCL are causing dentin hypersensitivity and risk of tooth fracture [7]. Studies show that NCCL's treatment is necessary only if they are wedge shaped and their dimensions exceeds 0.5 mm [8], consisting in identifying and eliminating the causes, followed by filling the cavity with restorative materials. The choice of the restorative material is influenced by the area that has to be restored, the patient's age and the qualities of the material regarding long-term resistance, wearing resistance, fracture resistance, marginal leakage, conservation of tooth structure, occlusal stress resistance, esthetics and cost [9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Fracture Resistance of Teeth Presenting non-carious Cervical Lesions, Restored with Different Composite Materials

Mărgărit¹,

Tănăsescu²,

Bodnar³

et al. 2020

Mater. Plast.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of our study was to compare the fracture resistance of teeth presenting non-carious cervical lesions restored with different types of esthetic composite materials. 20 extracted unspoiled maxillary first molars were mechanically cleaned and immersed in saline solution containing 0.1% thymol at 4�C for a period of 48 hours. Cervical cavities with a cervical-occlusal diameter of 2 mm and a mesial-distal diameter of 3mm were filled with ormocer, flow nano-composite, nano-composite and compomer. Fracture resistance was tested with a universal loading machine (Lloyd Instruments), with a maximum force of 5 kN and a crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/min; the authors used NEXYGEN Data Analysis Software and ANOVA method. For the group A (commercial grade ormocer), the smallest load that determined the sample failure was 650 N and the highest load was 1050 N, the mean value being 858 N � 150.89 N. For the group B (commercial grade flow nano-composite), the smallest load is 530 N, the highest load is 800 N, mean value being 654 N � 112.6 N. For the group C (commercial grade nano-composite), the smallest load is 680 N, the highest load is 1200 N, mean value being 926 N � 209.35 N. For the group D (commercial grade compomer), the smallest load is 1100 N, highest load is 1250N, mean value being 1180 N � 62.04 N. A p value of 0.000311 (p[0.05) shows that there are significant differences between the four groups. Conclusions. The best fracture resistance of teeth presenting non-carious cervical lesions, restored with different types of esthetic composite materials is assured by the compomer, followed by the nano-composite, which proved to be superior to ormocer. The flow nano-composite gives the lowest fracture resistance.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%