Reattachment of fractured teeth using a multimode adhesive: Effect of different rewetting solutions and immersion time

Maia, Guilherme Brasil; Pereira, Raquel Vitório; Poubel, Déborah Lousan do Nascimento; Almeida, Juliana Franco; Ribeiro, Ana Paula Dias; Rezende, Liliana Vicente Melo de Lucas; Garcia, Fernanda Cristina Pimentel

doi:10.1111/edt.12506

Cited by 10 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results also revealed that the duration of time spent rehydrating the fractured fragments had no effect on their fracture resistance. This is in line with the findings of a study conducted by Brasil Maia et al [21], who found that hydration of the tooth fragment increased fracture resistance regardless of storage solution or immersion period (1 hour or 24 hours). Poubel et al [14], on the other hand, found that rehydrating a tooth fragment for 15 minutes before bonding with a multimode adhesive appeared to keep enough moisture in the tooth fragment to boost reattachment strength.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of different rehydration protocols and their immersion times on the fracture resistance of fragment reattachment in uncomplicated crown fractures: An in vitro study

2022

pnr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to evaluate the effects of different rehydration media and their immersion times on fracture resistance of fragment reattachment in uncomplicated crown fractures. 110 extracted sound human maxillary and mandibular incisors were randomly divided into 11 groups (n=10). The teeth were fractured 3mm away from and parallel to the incisal edge using diamond disc. Afterwards, the apical segments were stored in artificial saliva (Saleva), while the coronal segments underwent the dehydration-rehydration stages and grouped randomly into 5 (n=10, 10, 30, 30, 30). Group 1: control group (intact teeth); Group 2: 24 hours dehydration, no rehydration; Group 3: skimmed milk rehydration; Group 4: saline(0.45%) rehydration; Group 5: dextrose solution(50%) rehydration. Group 3,4,5 further subdivided into A: 15 min, B: 30 min, C: 24 hours. Re-attachment was done with flowable composite resin. Fracture resistance tested with universal testing machine. Statistical analysis (p=0.05) done by One-way ANOVA, Two-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey's test HSD. Fracture resistance: Group 1 (highest), Group 5 (higher), Group 2(least). Within study limitations, it is conclusive that preservation of tooth fragment in dextrose solution(50%) results in higher fracture resistance, followed by saline(0.45%) and skimmed milk, respectively.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Dental trauma, on the other hand, is not usually caused by a high-energy impact. Malocclusion and parafunctions like bruxism can cause persistent overload on the teeth, which can lead to coronal fracture [21].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of different rehydration protocols and their immersion times on the fracture resistance of fragment reattachment in uncomplicated crown fractures: An in vitro study

2022

pnr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The teeth that had not undergone fracture, along with their respective fragments, were subsequently randomized (Excel randomization table) into four groups (n = 15). The sample size was determined based on similar studies that assessed shear bond strength on dental hard tissues [10][11][12]. After randomization, the specimens were stored in artificial saliva, following the protocol established by Klimek [13].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adhesion of tooth fragment after trauma: effect of adhesion strategy and storage in the rescue box

2024

JOCPD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to investigate the impact of storage conditions for crown fragments (specifically, whether they were stored within a tooth rescue box or in tap water) on their adhesion to fractured teeth when subjected to two different adhesive systems (namely, total etch and self etch). Sixty maxillary premolars were sectioned to obtain tooth fragments. These fragments were stored briefly (2 hours) and reattached in the following groups: Group 1 (fragments stored in tooth rescue box and reattached with etch and rinse (E&R) technique), Group 2 (fragments stored in tap water and reattached with E&R technique), Group 3 (fragments stored in tooth rescue box and reattached with self-etch (SE) technique), and Group 4 (fragments stored in tap water and reattached SE technique). After reattachment, the bonded tooth fragments underwent thermal cycling (500 cycles, 5-55 • C) and bond strength testing using a universal testing machine. Twoway Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's tests were used for bond strength comparison (p ≤ 0.05). A two-parameter Weibull distribution was conducted to evaluate the reliability of the storage medium and adhesion modality on bond strength. The results showed that measured shear bond values (MPa ± Standard deviation (SD); arranged in descending order) for each group were: Group 2 (Tap water/E&R = 6.5 ± 2.1), Group 1 (Rescue box/E&R = 6.0 ± 2.5), Group 4 (Tap water/E&R = 5.1 ± 2.8), and Group 3 (Rescue box/SE = 3.6 ± 3.2). Significant differences were found only between Groups 2 and 3 (p = 0.002). In conclusion, storing crown fragments in a tooth rescue box did not significantly affect the shear bond strength of the restored tooth. However, fragments reattached using the self-etch technique showed comparable shear bond strength but a higher rate of adhesive failures compared to the E&R technique.

show abstract

“…Maia et al tried to compare the effect of different rehydrating/ storage solutions such as saline, artificial saliva, coconut water and bovine milk on the force required to fracture the reattached fragments. 12 They concluded that the solution used for immersion and the duration did not affect the force required to fracture. 12 This was similar to the findings of Poubel et al 4 and Suresh et al 13 The role of humidification and rehydration of fragments, however, is also There are several additional methods that have been employed…”

Section: Ta B L Ementioning

confidence: 99%

“…12 They concluded that the solution used for immersion and the duration did not affect the force required to fracture. 12 This was similar to the findings of Poubel et al 4 and Suresh et al 13 The role of humidification and rehydration of fragments, however, is also There are several additional methods that have been employed…”

Section: Ta B L Ementioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of three protocols for the management of re‐fracture of teeth with uncomplicated crown fractures

Tewari

Tamchos

Chaurasia

et al. 2021

Dental Traumatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Crown fractures restored by fragment reattachment are liable to refracture, which may cause fragment dislodgement. There is a paucity of literature regarding management of fragment reattachment cases following a further fracture.Hence the aim of the present in-vitro study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy of three different management protocols for such scenarios.Methodology: Eighty maxillary bovine incisors without structural deformity and with similar dimensions were fractured as per the standard protocol. They were subjected to drying for 24 hours and the fragments were rehydrated by placing them in a humidification chamber for 15 minutes. They were then reattached by using flowable light-cured composite resin. The teeth (n=20) were fractured again by fixing them in a mechanical frame and using a mallet. They were randomly allocated to three experimental groups. (Group I mechanical abrasion and fragment reattachment, Group II mechanical abrasion, humidification and reattachment, Group III mechanical abrasion and composite restoration, and Group IV positive control with no re-fracture). The samples were thermocycled and the force required to fracture was tested by using a universal testing machine (Instron-3360, USA). This was done by applying a tangential load with a speed of 1 mm/min to the teeth with a 500-kg load cell. Statistical analysis of the results was performed using ANOVA and the independent t-test. Results:The highest force required to fracture was reported in Group IV (333.26 ± 66.69N) while the lowest was in Group II (254.86 ± 105.23N). The forces in Group I and Group II were 258.36 ± 65. 78N and 298.02 ± 97.94N, respectively (p=0.016, F=3.68). The independent t-test between the groups revealed a significant difference between Group I and Group IV (p= 0.001) and Group II and Group IV (p=0.009). Conclusion:The force required to fracture was significantly lower in the groups involving attachment of the re-fractured fragments. Among the experimental groups, the group with composite restoration required the highest force to fracture.

show abstract

Reattachment of fractured teeth using a multimode adhesive: Effect of different rewetting solutions and immersion time

Cited by 10 publications

References 28 publications

Effect of different rehydration protocols and their immersion times on the fracture resistance of fragment reattachment in uncomplicated crown fractures: An in vitro study

Effect of different rehydration protocols and their immersion times on the fracture resistance of fragment reattachment in uncomplicated crown fractures: An in vitro study

Adhesion of tooth fragment after trauma: effect of adhesion strategy and storage in the rescue box

Comparison of three protocols for the management of re‐fracture of teeth with uncomplicated crown fractures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About