Fracture resistance of premolars with one remaining cavity wall restored using different techniques

Abstract

The aim of the study was to compare the fracture resistance of maxillary premolars with one remaining cavity wall restored using different post systems. Forty-eight maxillary premolars were endodontically treated and randomly assigned to four groups for postcore restoration. The first three test groups were restored with polyethylene woven fiber posts, custom-made glass fiber-reinforced composite posts, and titanium posts respectively. In the control Group 4, standardized cavities (3.5×1.5 mm) were prepared in the palatal canal entrance and filled with a resin composite. All the specimens were then restored with a resin composite crown seated on the post. Load was applied with a stainless steel ball (1 mm/min), and the failure modes of all specimens were evaluated. There were no significant differences in fracture resistance and failure mode among the different restorative materials (p>0.05). Within the limitations of this in vitro study, it was concluded that the presence and type of post did not influence the fracture load and failure mode of maxillary premolar teeth with one remaining cavity wall.

Effects of Toothbrushing with Fluoride Abrasive and Whitening Dentifrices on Both Unbleached and Bleached Human Enamel Surface in Terms of Roughness and Hardness: An in vitro Study

“…11 The results from the current study support the hypotheses proposed, since the restored teeth had similar cuspal deflection to sound teeth, and lower cuspal deflection than those teeth that were only prepared and not restored.…”

“…[7][8][9] Intact teeth rarely break under masticatory stresses; however, teeth with extensive restorations can frequently suffer cuspal fracture. 10,11 Cavity preparations have been routinely associated with the decreased fracture strength of restored teeth. 12 Tooth deformation is indicative of a combination of stresses in the tooth, in the restoration or across the tooth-restoration interface.…”

Fracture Resistance of Premolars Restored Either with Short Fiber or Polyethylene Woven Fiber‐Reinforced Composite

“…Subsequently, the specimens were embedded parallel to the long axis of the teeth in a teflon mold (5 × 2 cm) using acrylic resin (Meliodent, Bayer UK Ltd., Newburry) up to 2 mm below the cemento–enamel junction to simulate the alveolar bone. The cavity design was described by Kıvanç et al Palatal cusps were removed and the cavities were prepared using a fissure diamond bur (SS White Burs, NJ), whereby the thickness of the buccal wall measured 1.5 mm at the occlusal surface and 2 mm at the cemento‐enamel junction (CEJ) buccolingually and 4 mm mesio‐distally (Figure a,b). The cavity floor was perpendicular to the long axis of the tooth.…”

Influence of fiber posts on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars with different dental defects

“…11 The loading site was at the central fissure of the occlusal surface pointing down to the lingual incline of the buccal cusp. Force data applied over time were recorded in a computer connected to the loading machine.…”