Resistance to fracture of endodontically treated premolars restored with glass ionomer cement or acid etch composite resin: An in vitro study

Ranga, B; Chole, DG; Kundoor, Shashank

doi:10.4103/2231-0754.95281

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…3 Several materials have been suggested as intracoronal restorative materials, such as glass ionomer cement (GIC); composite resins; miracle mix, coremax, and Hi-Dens, which are metal-reinforced GICs. 4 Dental amalgam is a restoration of choice by many clinicians, but it has a mechanical adhesion to the tooth and also requires proper cavity preparation which may be difficult to consider for a tooth considered for endodontic purpose. Also, studies have reported micro crack propagation under fatigue loading; 5 hence, it may not provide good fracture resistance of the remaining tooth.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An in vitro Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of endodontically treated Teeth with Different Restorative Materials

Sangwan

Rishi²,

Seal³

et al. 2016

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims The aim of the present study is to compare and assess the fracture resistance of root canal treated teeth with different restorative materials. Materials and methods The present in vitro study was carried out on seventy-five freshly extracted, noncarious, single-canal human lower-first premolars with similar anatomic characteristics. Teeth were randomly assigned to five groups with 15 teeth being present in each group. Group I is control group (no alteration done), group II is restored with silver amalgam after endodontic therapy, group III is restored with posterior composite after endodontic therapy, group IV is restored with posterior glass ionomer cement (GIC) after endodontic therapy, and group V is restored with miracle mix after endodontic therapy. Universal testing machine was used to assess the fracture strength. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) test followed by Tukey's post hoc test were used to determine the significant difference between each group. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant. Results The mean fracture resistance of control group showed highest fracture resistance with a mean Newton of 1083.33 ± 136.78. Among the restorative material, the highest fracture resistance was shown by teeth restored by composite (845.46 ± 47.36), followed by silver amalgam (845.46 ± 47.36). There was statistically significant difference among all the restorative materials compared with the control group (p < 0.05). However, among the teeth restored with silver amalgam and miracle mix, there was no statistical significance (p > 0.05). Conclusion The present study concludes that composites are found to be having more fracture resistance followed by silver amalgam on endodontically treated premolar teeth. Clinical significance Restoring nonvital teeth represents a major challenge for clinicians as they are extensively damaged due to caries and endodontic access preparations. With various restorative materials in the market, it becomes difficult for the clinician to choose the better restorative material for postendodontic restoration. How to cite this article Sangwan B, Rishi R, Seal M, Jain K, Dutt P, Talukdar P. An in vitro Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of endodontically treated Teeth with Different Restorative Materials. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(7):549-552.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%