Fracture resistance of prepared teeth restored with bonded inlay restorations

St-Georges, Annie J; Sturdevant, John R.; Swift, Edward J.; Thompson, Jeffrey Y.

doi:10.1016/s0022-3913(03)00173-2

Cited by 96 publications

(99 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…According to some authors, ceramic inlays maintain better anatomic form of the surface as well as stabilize the weakened cusps better than composite resin inlays 29,32,33) . On the other hand, other authors reported that teeth restored with composite resin inlays exhibited higher strength than those restored with ceramic inlays 34,35) . Still, there were reports which showed that the fracture resistance of teeth with both ceramic and composite resin inlays was similar 36,37) .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Effects of different ceramic and composite materials on stress distribution in inlay and onlay cavities: 3-D finite element analysis

Yamanel

Çağlar

Gülşahı

et al. 2009

Dental Materials Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To reduce loss of tooth tissue and to improve esthetic results, inlay and onlay restorations are good treatment choices for extensive cavities in posterior teeth. The aim of this paper was to evaluate, by means of three-dimensional finite element analysis, the effects of restorative material and cavity design on stress distribution in the tooth structures and restorative materials. Two different nanofilled composites and two different all-ceramic materials were used in this study. A permanent molar tooth was modeled with enamel and dentin structures. 3-D inlay and onlay cavity designs were created. Von Mises, compressive, and tensile stresses on the restorative materials, core materials, enamel, and dentin were evaluated separately. On the effect of restorative material, results showed that in the case of materials with low elastic moduli, more stress was transferred to the tooth structures. Therefore, compared to the nanofilled composites, the all-ceramic inlay and onlay materials tested transferred less stress to the tooth structures. On the effect of cavity design, the onlay design was more efficacious in protecting the tooth structures than the inlay design.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Effects of different ceramic and composite materials on stress distribution in inlay and onlay cavities: 3-D finite element analysis

Yamanel

Çağlar

Gülşahı

et al. 2009

Dental Materials Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is chiefly because in the clinical setting, a high incidence of fractures is reported for maxillary premolars and that molars of the same dental arch have presented similar fracture rates 30) . Fracture analysis revealed that the lingual cusp fractured more frequently in maxillary premolars under compressive loading 31) . Similarly, an in vivo study by Eakle et al 32) reported that the lingual cusps of maxillary premolars fractured more often than the buccal cusps.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

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

Kıvanç¹,

Alaçam²,

Görgül³

2010

Dent. Mater. J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…Quite interestingly, this finding is consistent with other studies testing the fracture of restored premolars. 26 Eakle and others also reported that lingual cusps of maxillary premolars fracture more often than buccal cusps in vivo. 27 One interesting observation was for the ProCAD groups where, for two specimens, the inlays remained bonded to the buccal and lingual cusps and the teeth fractured on the other proximal side.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Fracture Strength of Minimally Prepared Resin Bonded CEREC Inlays

Tsitrou

Helvatjoglou-Antoniades²,

Pahinis³

et al. 2009

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYPurpose: This study compared the structural integrity and fracture mode of teeth restored with traditionally and minimally prepared resinbonded CAD/CAM inlays fabricated from the same material.Methods: Forty intact maxillary premolars were used and divided into four groups. Two groups were prepared according to a traditional inlay preparation design (2.0 mm occlusal reduction, a 1.5 mm wide proximal box and divergent walls) and two groups were prepared according to a newly proposed minimal preparation design (round shaped cavity with 1.0 mm occlusal reduction, a U-shaped proximal box 1.0 mm wide and parallel walls). Two restorative systems were tested: a composite system comprised of Paradigm MZ100 (3M ESPE) blocks and RelyX Unicem (3M ESPE) resin cement and a ceramic system comprised of ProCAD blocks (IvoclarVivadent) and Variolink II (Ivoclar-Vivadent) resin cement. The inlays were cemented according to the manufacturers' instructions. Each specimen was loaded axially to its occlusal surface at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/minute in a universal testing machine until fracture. The fracture load data were analyzed using ANOVA, comparing inlays of the same restorative material. Also, the mode of fracture of the inlays was recorded and analyzed using a non-parametric test (Kruskal-Wallis).Results: In the composite system case, the mean fracture load and SD were 1322 N (±445) for the traditional inlays and 1511 N (±395) for the mini- Clinical RelevanceMinimal preparation designs for inlay restorations are a viable option for CAD/CAM systems (CEREC) and could potentially strengthen the restored tooth. 538Operative Dentistry A mal inlays, while in the ceramic system case, those values were 1135N (±450) for the traditional inlays and 1761 N (±494) for the minimal inlays. Statistical analysis of the results showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the two designs for the composite system, while for the ceramic system, the minimally prepared teeth showed higher mean fracture strength. Non-parametric analysis (KruskalWallis) of the mode of fracture showed that there was no statistically significant difference between traditionally and minimally prepared inlays for both systems (p>.05).Conclusions: Under the conditions of this experimental study, only the ceramic inlays, when prepared with a minimal preparation design, demonstrated a higher fracture strength as compared to the traditionally prepared teeth. Use of the proposed minimal preparation design did not compromise the immediate post-operative structural integrity of teeth restored either with resin composite or ceramic inlays.

show abstract

Fracture resistance of prepared teeth restored with bonded inlay restorations

Cited by 96 publications

References 20 publications

Effects of different ceramic and composite materials on stress distribution in inlay and onlay cavities: 3-D finite element analysis

Effects of different ceramic and composite materials on stress distribution in inlay and onlay cavities: 3-D finite element analysis

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

Fracture Strength of Minimally Prepared Resin Bonded CEREC Inlays

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About