IADR Abstract Archives
Fracture Load of Cuspal Coverage Composites Using Nano-Fiber Materials
Objectives: Limited research has been published evaluating the use of nano-fiber materials in the restoration of a cusp. The purpose of this study was to determine the fracture load of cuspal-coverage restorations utilizing various material combinations.
Methods: Fifty extracted human mandibular third molars were prepared for mesio-occlusal-facial cuspal coverage restorations. Ten cuspal coverage restorations were constructed per group using the following restorative materials: (Group 1) nanofill composite (Filtek Supreme Ultra Universal, 3M); (Group 2) nanofiber-reinforced composite (NovaPro Fill, Nanova); (Group 3) short-fiber composite dentin base (Ever-X Flow, GC) covered with a nanofill composite (Filtek Supreme Ultra Universal); (Group 4) polyethylene fiber-based leno-weave (Ribbond, Ribbond, Inc.) covered with nanofill composite (Filtek Supreme Ultra Universal), and (Group 5) bonded amalgam (Valiant PhD, Ivoclar). Groups 1-4 were bonded with a self-adhesive bonding agent with selective enamel etching prior to composite placement. For Group 4, the preparations were lined with a flowable composite before placement of the polyethylene fiber. For Group 5, a 1.5mm deep amalgapin at the mesial line angle and a chemical-cure adhesive system (Amalgambond Plus, Parkell) were utilized before amalgam placement. After thermocycling and cyclic fatiguing, fracture load testing was performed on the specimens utilizing a universal testing machine. Data were analyzed with a one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post hoc tests (α=0.05).
Results: Significant differences were found between the groups (p<0.05). Group 3 was significantly greater in fracture load than all other groups (p<0.001). See table.
Conclusions: Compared to the other materials, the use of a short-fiber composite dentin base (Ever-X Flow) covered with a nanofill composite (Filtek Supreme Ultra) resulted in the greatest fracture load of a single-cusp composite restoration.
Methods: Fifty extracted human mandibular third molars were prepared for mesio-occlusal-facial cuspal coverage restorations. Ten cuspal coverage restorations were constructed per group using the following restorative materials: (Group 1) nanofill composite (Filtek Supreme Ultra Universal, 3M); (Group 2) nanofiber-reinforced composite (NovaPro Fill, Nanova); (Group 3) short-fiber composite dentin base (Ever-X Flow, GC) covered with a nanofill composite (Filtek Supreme Ultra Universal); (Group 4) polyethylene fiber-based leno-weave (Ribbond, Ribbond, Inc.) covered with nanofill composite (Filtek Supreme Ultra Universal), and (Group 5) bonded amalgam (Valiant PhD, Ivoclar). Groups 1-4 were bonded with a self-adhesive bonding agent with selective enamel etching prior to composite placement. For Group 4, the preparations were lined with a flowable composite before placement of the polyethylene fiber. For Group 5, a 1.5mm deep amalgapin at the mesial line angle and a chemical-cure adhesive system (Amalgambond Plus, Parkell) were utilized before amalgam placement. After thermocycling and cyclic fatiguing, fracture load testing was performed on the specimens utilizing a universal testing machine. Data were analyzed with a one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post hoc tests (α=0.05).
Results: Significant differences were found between the groups (p<0.05). Group 3 was significantly greater in fracture load than all other groups (p<0.001). See table.
Conclusions: Compared to the other materials, the use of a short-fiber composite dentin base (Ever-X Flow) covered with a nanofill composite (Filtek Supreme Ultra) resulted in the greatest fracture load of a single-cusp composite restoration.
3997988_File000000.jpg