Fracture Resistance of Various Bulk Fill Composite Resin in Endodontically Treated Class I Premolar (An in-Vitro Study)

Abstract

BACKGROUNDEndodontically treated teeth are more susceptible to fracture as a result of increased brittleness and are weakened because of coronal destruction. Endodontically treated teeth with small or minimal cavities can be restored with direct composites in the presence of buccal and palatal cusp with intact marginal ridge. Bulk fill has minimal polymerisation shrinkage rate, curing depth of 4 mm, better bond strength and good physical properties. Other advantages include fewer void in the restorative material and lesser risk of contamination between layers. MATERIALS AND METHODSForty intact human upper premolars were selected for this study. In G1 to G4 standard class I cavity preparation with mesiodistal length of 4 mm and bucco-palatal width of 3 mm were done. A conservative endodontic access was done. All canals were prepared with Ni-Ti K files using a step-back technique. All teeth were obturated with gutta-percha. The teeth were randomly divided into four groups, G1 Tetric N Ceram bulk fill, G2 Filtek bulk fill, G3 Smart Dentin Replacement bulk fill and G4 Packable composite Filtek P60. RESULTSThere was a statistically significant effect on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars with class I cavities using bulk fill composites (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONBulk fill composite can be used as a final restoration in endodontically treated premolars with class I cavity, as it can also preserve sound tooth structure which can increase fracture resistance of the tooth.

Fracture Resistance of Various Bulk-fill Composite Resins in Class II MOD Cavity on Premolars: An In Vitro Study

“…But Farahanny et al found that the maxillary premolar teeth that had been endodontically treated with final restoration resin composite bulk-fill had high fracture resistance. 12 Difficulties in looking for study samples of recently extracted upper premolar teeth were also of influence when measuring fracture resistance because tooth that has been extracted quite a while would undergo structural changes. Inorganic materials such as calcium hydroxyapatite and organic materials such as collagen start to deteriorate after the tooth was extracted.…”

The differences of microleakage smart dentin replacement, glass ionomer cement and a flowable resin composite as orifice barrier in root canal treated

“…SDR is a bulk fill composite that can be applied into cavities with a thickness of 4 mm, reduces porosity, and provides a restoration with better consistency. 27 According to Leprince et al SDR has better marginal adaptation 28 and micro tensile than a conventional hybrid composite resin. 2 Micro orifice barrier leakage can cause gutta percha and a sealer to be exposed to saliva and bacteria, so it is necessary to choose a sealer that has good adhesion to the tooth structure to prevent bacterial and salivary contamination into the root canal.…”