Fracture resistance of mollars with MOD cavities restored with different materials

Abstract

Restoring teeth with second class cavities is a challenge in dentistry. Both the carious process and the preparation of the cavity for the dental restoration reduces the tooth resistance to the masticatory forces. It has been shown that modern aesthetic materials using an adhesive system improve the stress resistance of the restored teeth. There is a series of studies that attempted to determine the type of optimal material that would provide increased resistance to occlusal demands. In the present study we tried to determine the fracture resistance of molars with second class cavities restored with different categories of aesthetic materials. Thus, forty intact molars were divided into five groups of 8 teeth, MOD cavities were prepared and the teeth were restored with three types of materials: nanofilled composite, mycrohibrid composite and ormocer. The teeth of the first group were left unprepared, and those belonging to the second group were subjected to the preparation of MOD cavities but were not filled. Samples were subjected to compression using an Universal Loading Machine (Lloyd Instruments) and the value of the force they failed was recorded. Intact teeth showed the highest resistance to compression and those with MOD cavities prepared but not filled showed the smallest. Of the groups that benefited from restoration with filling material, the teeth restored with ormocer had the highest resistance, followed by those restored with nanofilled composite, and finally by those restored with mycrohibrid composite.

Influence of Heliobond on Microtensile Bond Strength of a New BIS-GMA Free Versus BIS-GMA Containing Composite Resin Restoration

“…The results of the current investigation were consistent with that of Margarit et al [44], who found that teeth treated with ormocer had the highest µTBS value, followed by those restored with nano-filled composite, and finally those restored with microhybrid resin composite. But in the study of Dina et al [45], they compared the µTBS of some MOD cavities in premolars that had been filled with various materials (ormocer, nano-filled, nanoceramic, and microhybrid composite), and they found that the teeth restored with nanoceramic composite had the best mean value of µTBS.…”

Fracture Resistance of Maxillary Premolars With Complex Class Ii Cavities Restored With Recent Types of Posterior Composites and Biaxial Flexural Strength Assessment

“…The results of the current study were in concurrence with the results of Taha et al (25) who observed that improved fracture resistance with nearly similar values to the positive control group was found in the nanoceramic group while microhybrid group revealed significantly lower fracture resistance in comparison to all restored groups, that was also statistically insignificant when compared to the negative control group. Also Mărgărit et al (26) reported that microhybrid composite showed the lowest fracture resistance values compared to other restorative materials used in their study and was insignificantly higher that negative control group.…”

Base Materials’ Influence on Fracture Resistance of Molars with MOD Cavities

“…Fractures of posterior teeth with mesial-occlusal-distal (MOD) cavities restored with different materials can occur in mastication more frequently than those of healthy ones, proportionally with the quantity of hard dental tissues loss [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. As restoration materials, those that adhere most to the dentin are the most recommended [ 4 ], considering that using them increases the resistance of the restored tooth [ 5 , 6 ]. A material used as a base for replacing lost dentine in a medium-sized cavity ensures a uniformly distributed load and tension across the filled tooth [ 7 ], especially in MOD cavities [ 8 , 9 ].…”