Impact and Fracture Strength of Simulated Immature Teeth Treated with Mineral Trioxide Aggregate Apical Plug and Fiber Post Versus Revascularization

Jamshidi, Davoud; Homayouni, Hamed; Majd, Nima Moradi; Shahabi, Samaneh; Arvin, Armita; Omidi, Baharan Ranjbar

doi:10.1016/j.joen.2018.09.008

Cited by 18 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The reinforcing effect of FRC posts in immature teeth is a matter of ongoing debate. According to Jamshidi et al, and Linsuwanont et al FRC posts cannot reinforce an immature tooth as the fracture resistance after post insertion is significantly lower compared to intact teeth [8,11]. In contrast, in the study of Schmoldt et al immature teeth restored with FRC post showed higher fracture resistance compared to intact teeth [7].…”

Section: Vhmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Albeit the MTA barrier can easily manage and close the open apex, it cannot adequately strengthen the weak and thin dentinal walls. Application of a fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) post after the MTA plug was suggested to reinforce these traumatized teeth [8]. As shown by many, immature anterior teeth are highly susceptible to cervical root fracture, even from normal masticatory forces [3,9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Fatigue failure load of immature anterior teeth: influence of different fiber post-core systems

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim was to explore the fracture-behavior, survival and marginal-microgaps within the root-canal of immature anterior teeth restored with different fiber-reinforced post-core composites (FRCs). 180 bovine-incisors were randomly divided into 6 groups (n = 30). One group served as control (group 6). The rest of the teeth were prepared to an internal diameter of 1.6 mm and the apex was sectioned. After application of an MTA-plug, teeth were restored with FRC materials: Group 1: Bioblock technique with short fiber-reinforced composite (SFRC); Group 2: Bioblock technique with flowable SFRC; Group 3: Individually-made FRC post; Group 4: Conventional FRC post; Group 5: dual-cure core build-up composite. After restorations were completed, teeth (n = 5/group) were sectioned and then stained. Specimens were viewed under a stereo microscope and the percentage of microgaps within the root-canal was calculated. Fatigue-survival was measured using a cyclic-loading testing machine in the rest of the specimens. Flowable SFRC application in the root-canal (Group 2) did not differ from intact-teeth regarding fatigue-survival (p > 0.05). The rest of the groups produced significantly lower survival (p < 0.05) compared to intact-teeth. Post/core restorations made from conventional FRC post (Group 4) exhibited a high number of microgaps (38.3%) at the examined interphase in the root-canal. The restoration of immature incisors with the use of flowable SFRC as post-core material displayed promising performance in a matter of fatigue-resistance and survival.

show abstract

Section: Vhmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fatigue failure load of immature anterior teeth: influence of different fiber post-core systems

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Blocks were placed in a universal testing machine (Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan) and a compressive loading at a speed of 0.5 mm/min was applied the cingulum at a 135° angle with a spherical tip. 3 The force when the fracture occurred was calculated in Newton ( Figure 1d ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 2 These teeth are shown more susceptible to cervical fracture during functional stresses and secondary to trauma applied to the cervical area. 3 , 4 In RET, cervical sealing with a tricalcium silicate-based barrier is suggested to provide a bacterial tight seal 5 and induction of mineral formation. 6 Composites, in combination with dental adhesives, have been commonly suggested for an effective coronal restoration placed over the tricalcium silicate-based barrier to prevent reinfection of the root canal.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reinforcement effect of intra-orifice barrier materials in teeth treated with regenerative endodontic procedure: Research article

Türker

Olcay

Kaşıkçı

et al. 2021

J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. Regenerative endodontic treatment (RET) is a clinically advanced procedure for necrotic immature teeth. However, root canal walls of these teeth are brittle especially in the cervical region and need reinforcement. This in vitro study is conducted to evaluate the effect of intra-orifice barrier materials on the fracture resistance of immature teeth treated with regenerative procedure. Methods. Forty-eight maxillary central incisors were used. Twelve intact teeth were selected for the control group. Remained teeth were prepared using peeso drills to simulate immature teeth and assigned into three groups according to the intra-orifice barrier material placed over MTA (n=12); Composite resin (CR), ProRoot MTA and Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC). Fracture strength test was applied using a universal testing machine. One-way ANOVA and Tukey post hoc tests were used at P=0.05. Results. A significant difference was obtained among groups (P<0.05). MTA showed the lowest fracture resistance (P<0.05). However, no significant difference was found among RMGIC, CR, and control groups (P>0.05). Conclusion. Intra-orifice restorative materials have reinforcement affect in immature teeth treated with regenerative endodontic procedure. RMGIC or CR can be regarded as a viable choice to reduce the occurrence of cervical root fracture of immature teeth treated with a regenerative therapy.

show abstract

“…Many of the procedures are encountered in everyday dentistry, 239 or are dental problems usually treated by specialists, endodontists, pediatric dentists or oral surgeons. Beyond Figure 3, the calcium silicate cements have been used for pulpal revascularization, the most up-to-date endodontic treatment for traumatically injured, immature, anterior teeth [240][241][242] as depicted in Figure 4. For this procedure, the calcium silicate cements are used to create a coronal seal.…”

Section: Clinical Performance Of Calcium Silicate and Calcium Aluminate Cements In Dentistrymentioning

confidence: 99%

Calcium silicate and calcium aluminate cements for dentistry reviewed

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Calcium silicate cements were identified as excellent materials for dentistry, particularly for dental procedures contacting the dental pulp or root system. Both calcium silicate and calcium aluminate cements cause the biomineralization (precipitation of hydroxyapatite [HA] phenomena and shield dental tissues from the underlying cement (a foreign body material). The cements also elute ions to stimulate cytokines that contribute to the healing of the dental pulp or in the tissue surrounding the root of a tooth. The cements serve as a foundation for other dental restorative materials. This paper reviews the cement phases, properties, in vivo reactions, and clinical benefits from the use of calcium silicate and calcium aluminate ceramic cements.

show abstract

Impact and Fracture Strength of Simulated Immature Teeth Treated with Mineral Trioxide Aggregate Apical Plug and Fiber Post Versus Revascularization

Cited by 18 publications

References 26 publications

Fatigue failure load of immature anterior teeth: influence of different fiber post-core systems

Fatigue failure load of immature anterior teeth: influence of different fiber post-core systems

Reinforcement effect of intra-orifice barrier materials in teeth treated with regenerative endodontic procedure: Research article

Calcium silicate and calcium aluminate cements for dentistry reviewed

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About