Effect of Different Intraorifice Barriers and Bleaching Agents on the Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Anterior Teeth

Oskoee, Siavash Savadi; Bahari, Mahmoud; Daneshpooy, Mehdi; Ajami, Amir Ahmad; Rahbar, Mahdi

doi:10.1016/j.joen.2018.07.025

Cited by 16 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In another study by Nagas et al, 15 it was demonstrated that a fiber-incorporated version of MTA could significantly contribute to higher fracture resistance values. Conversely, in a study by Savadi Oskoee et al 16 no significant difference was found between MTA and RMGIC. The disagreements in the findings among studies may be attributed to the differences in study designs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Reinforcement effect of intra-orifice barrier materials in teeth treated with regenerative endodontic procedure: Research article

Türker

Olcay

Kaşıkçı

et al. 2021

J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. Regenerative endodontic treatment (RET) is a clinically advanced procedure for necrotic immature teeth. However, root canal walls of these teeth are brittle especially in the cervical region and need reinforcement. This in vitro study is conducted to evaluate the effect of intra-orifice barrier materials on the fracture resistance of immature teeth treated with regenerative procedure. Methods. Forty-eight maxillary central incisors were used. Twelve intact teeth were selected for the control group. Remained teeth were prepared using peeso drills to simulate immature teeth and assigned into three groups according to the intra-orifice barrier material placed over MTA (n=12); Composite resin (CR), ProRoot MTA and Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC). Fracture strength test was applied using a universal testing machine. One-way ANOVA and Tukey post hoc tests were used at P=0.05. Results. A significant difference was obtained among groups (P<0.05). MTA showed the lowest fracture resistance (P<0.05). However, no significant difference was found among RMGIC, CR, and control groups (P>0.05). Conclusion. Intra-orifice restorative materials have reinforcement affect in immature teeth treated with regenerative endodontic procedure. RMGIC or CR can be regarded as a viable choice to reduce the occurrence of cervical root fracture of immature teeth treated with a regenerative therapy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Reinforcement effect of intra-orifice barrier materials in teeth treated with regenerative endodontic procedure: Research article

Türker

Olcay

Kaşıkçı

et al. 2021

J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the present study, we used destructive compressive strength test, a commonly used method by many investigators (2,17), to evaluate the effect of final irrigants on the fracture resistance of root‐filled teeth. Non‐destructive analysis (such as finite element evaluation) was suggested to give more valuable data about stress distribution within teeth (18), but this was not our primary objective.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of final irrigation protocols on the fracture resistance of roots with varying dentine thickness

Ulusoy

Şen

Zeyrek

et al. 2021

European J Oral Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study evaluated the effects of 9% etidronic acid (HEBP) and 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) used either with conventional syringe irrigation (CSI) or passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI) on the fracture resistance of roots with different dentine thickness. The root canals of 120 extracted teeth were widened, leaving dentinal walls with different thicknesses of either 0.75 mm, 1.50 mm, or 2.25 mm with 40 teeth in each group. Within each of these groups, four subgroups (n = 10) were formed according to the final irrigation regimens applied: 2.5% NaOCl‐17% EDTA with CSI; 2.5% NaOCl‐17% EDTA with PUI; 2.5% NaOCl + 9% HEBP with CSI; 2.5% NaOCl + 9% HEBP with PUI. The irrigated root canals were obturated with AH Plus sealer and gutta‐percha cones. A compressive vertical loading was applied to the samples and the force at fracture was recorded. Data were statistically analysed using a multiple linear regression analysis. The most influencing factor for the fracture strength of roots was the remaining dentine thickness, followed by the irrigation method, and then the irrigation solution. The samples irrigated using PUI were statistically significantly more resistant to fracture than those using CSI (mean difference = 116.3 N; 95% CI = [53.9, 178.6] N). The application of HEBP was associated with higher resistance to fracture than the application of EDTA (mean difference = 71.0 N; 95% CI = [8.6, 133.3] N).

show abstract

“…Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth is an important factor in the longevity of teeth, which is under the influence of restorative procedures. Various techniques have been suggested in different studies for the restoration and strengthening of compromised endodontically treated teeth [14,15,[18][19][20][21][22]. Advances in adhesive dentistry and chemical composition of composite resins have resulted in the ability to render direct restorations with an acceptable strength and esthetic appearance for posterior teeth [23].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Different Fiber Reinforcement Strategies on the Fracture Strength of Composite Resin Restored Endodontically Treated Premolars

Bahari¹,

Mohammadi²,

Kimyai³

et al. 2019

Pesqui. bras. odontopediatria clín. integr.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To compare the effect of three different fiber reinforcement strategies on the fracture strength of composite resin restored endodontically treated premolars. Material and Methods: Seventy-two sound human premolars extracted for orthodontic reasons were divided into 6 groups (n=12) after endodontic treatment. Group 1: intact teeth (positive control); Group 2: endodontically treated teeth without restoration (negative control); Group 3: composite resin restoration; Group 4: placement of fibers at occlusal position; Group 5: splinting the buccal and palatal walls with horizontal fiber posts; Group 6: placement of fibers at the occlusal position after splinting the buccal and palatal walls with horizontal fiber posts. Then fracture strength was measured at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min in a universal testing machine. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey tests at α=0.05. Results: There were significant differences between the negative and positive control groups (p<0.001) and between the negative control group and all the other study groups (p<0.001). However, there were no statistically significant differences between the positive control group and all the experimental groups and between the experimental groups (p>0.05). Conclusion: Fiber insertion had no additional reinforcing effect on the fracture strength following composite resin restoration.

show abstract

Effect of Different Intraorifice Barriers and Bleaching Agents on the Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Anterior Teeth

Cited by 16 publications

References 25 publications

Reinforcement effect of intra-orifice barrier materials in teeth treated with regenerative endodontic procedure: Research article

Reinforcement effect of intra-orifice barrier materials in teeth treated with regenerative endodontic procedure: Research article

Effect of final irrigation protocols on the fracture resistance of roots with varying dentine thickness

Effect of Different Fiber Reinforcement Strategies on the Fracture Strength of Composite Resin Restored Endodontically Treated Premolars

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About