Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Premolars with Extensive MOD Cavities Restored with Different Composite Restorations : An in Vitro Study

Atiyah, Aws H.; Baban, Luma M.

doi:10.12816/0015139

Cited by 13 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…High flexural modulus can inhibit the ability of a material to resist deformation due to loading and promote the accumulation of surface and bulk defects, which may lead to premature failure (46,47). These findings are in agreement with those of Atiyah et al (48), who reported increased fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars restored with SDR.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with a bulkfill flowable material and a resin composite

Isufi¹

2016

ads

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryAim. To determine and compare the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with a bulk fill flowable material (SDR) and a traditional resin composite. Methods. Thirty maxillary and 30 mandibular first molars were selected based on similar dimensions. After cleaning, shaping and filling of the root canals and adhesive procedures, specimens were assigned to 3 subgroups for each tooth type (n=10): Group A: control group, including intact teeth; Group B: access cavities were restored with a traditional resin composite (EsthetX; Dentsply-Italy, Rome, Italy); Group C: access cavities were restored with a bulk fill flowable composite (SDR; Dentsply-Italy), except 1.5 mm layer of the occlusal surface that was restored with the same resin composite as Group B. The specimens were subjected to compressive force in a material static-testing machine until fracture occurred, the maximum fracture load of the specimens was measured (N) and the type of fracture was recorded as favorable or unfavorable. Data were statistically analyzed with one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Bonferroni tests (P<0.05). Results. No statistically significant differences were found among groups (P<0.05). Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with a traditional resin composite and with a bulk fill flowable composite (SDR) was similar in both maxillary and mandibular molars and showed no significant decrease in fracture resistance compared to intact specimens. Conclusions. No significant difference was observed in the mechanical fracture resistance of endodontically treated molars restored with traditional resin composite restorations compared to bulk fill flowable composite restorations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with a bulkfill flowable material and a resin composite

Isufi¹

2016

ads

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These findings are in agreement with those of a previous study, [24][25][26] who reported increased fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars restored with Smart Dentin Replacement flowable bulk-fill composites. Among the tested groups, fiber-reinforced bulk-fill composites showed the highest fracture resistance.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

In vitroEvaluation of Fracture Resistance of Endodontically treated Teeth restored with Bulk-fill, Bulk-fill Flowable, Fiber-reinforced, and Conventional Resin Composite

2018

Journal of Operative Dentistry &Amp; Endodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: This original research was carried out to assess the susceptibility to fracture of root canal treated teeth with composite postendodontic restorations.Materials and methods: Seventy-two sound human mandibular premolar teeth, extracted for various reasons, were selected. For experimental purposes, they were then divided into six groups (n = 12). Groups I and II were designated the negative control (no preparation done) and positive control (cavity preparation was done but left unrestored) respectively. In all other teeth, mesio-occluso-distal (MOD) cavities were prepared, and they were then root canal treated. The other groups were also restored with the respective resins: group III: condensable bulk-fill composite, group IV: bulk-fill flowable resin composite, group V: fiber-reinforced composite, and group VI: conventional resin-based composite. Manufacturerrecommended adhesive systems for respective restorative resins were used.To avoid desiccation of the specimens, they were kept in distilled water for 24 hours at body temperature. The specimens were then subjected to compressive loads until they fractured. Statistical analysis was performed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc Tukey tests.Results: Statistically significant results were observed among all groups. The highest and lowest values were noted with groups I and II respectively (p = 0.05). Conclusion:The resistance to fracture in root canal-treated teeth with everX Posterior, fiber-reinforced bulk-fill composite was the highest.

show abstract

“…The most common fracture in the non-fiber dentin replacement and flowable composites groups was a mixed pattern fracture since the material was less able to withstand cracks and plastic deformation under tensile pressure. An additional study demonstrated that the most frequent fracture pattern in the non-fiber dentin replacement was the adhesive fracture pattern in premolars with class II MOD cavities, which was not in line with the results reported in the current study and may be affected by differences in cavity extension [40]. The present study used non-fiber dentin replacement and flowable composites in complex cavities so that the tooth structure that received a load distribution was diminished.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 75%

“…The adhesive system plays a crucial role in maintaining the bond between the cavity wall and the restoration material. In the present study, all groups used an etch-and-rinse system that produced improved interlocking strength to increase the resistance of the fractures [15,32,40]. The research study conducted by Kumagai on molar teeth with class II MOD cavities indicated higher tensile strength in non-fiber dentin replacement compared with the flowable composites [41].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In Vitro Evaluation of the Strength of Dentin Replacement in Complex Posterior Tooth Restoration

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to the increasing interest in direct restoration, there is a need to address the shortcomings of these restorations, mainly by increasing the longevity of complex direct restorations. The present study aimed to evaluate the tensile strength differences in the complex restoration of posterior teeth with dentin replacement constructed by fiber and non-fiber materials. The samples were extracted from the mandibular permanent-molar and prepared using a complex cavity. The cavity was subsequently restored with the centripetal incremental technique using a nano-fill composite and different base materials, namely fiber dentin replacement, non-fiber dentin replacement, and flowable composite. The universal testing machine was used to consider the tensile strength and the fracture patterns were assessed using stereomicroscopy, followed by Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) examination. The data were statistically analyzed using the one-way ANOVA test. No significant differences were noted in the tensile strength of the three base materials. By using stereomicroscopy and SEM, the adhesive fracture patterns were observed more clearly in the cavities with fiber-based dentin replacement, whereas mixed fracture patterns were evident in cavities with non-fiber dentin replacement and flowable composite bases. The results indicated that the addition of fiber in dentin replacement did not affect the tensile strength in the complex restoration. Therefore, dentin replacement of both fiber and non-fiber materials is applicable as a base material for complex restoration of the posterior tooth.

show abstract

Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Premolars with Extensive MOD Cavities Restored with Different Composite Restorations : An in Vitro Study

Cited by 13 publications

References 47 publications

Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with a bulkfill flowable material and a resin composite

Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with a bulkfill flowable material and a resin composite

In vitroEvaluation of Fracture Resistance of Endodontically treated Teeth restored with Bulk-fill, Bulk-fill Flowable, Fiber-reinforced, and Conventional Resin Composite

In Vitro Evaluation of the Strength of Dentin Replacement in Complex Posterior Tooth Restoration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About