IADR Abstract Archives
Fracture resistance of endodontically-treated teeth restored with different restorative resins
Objectives: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the fracture resistance of endodontically-treated teeth restored with different types of restorative resins.
Methods: Seventy-two sound human maxillary premolar teeth were randomly divided into 6 groups (n=12). Teeth in first group left intact and tested as unprepared positive control (Group I). Teeth in the remaining five groups were prepared with MOD cavities and endodontically-treated. The teeth in one of the five groups (negative control-Group II) were unrestored. Rest of prepared cavities were restored as follows; Group III: Bulkfill resin composite/Filtek Bulk Fill (3M/ESPE); Group IV: Bulkfill flowable resin composite + nanoceramic resin composite/SureFil SDR Flow + Ceram X Mono (Dentsply); Group V: Fiber-reinforced composite + posterior resin composite/GCeverX posterior + G-aenial posterior (GC Corp.); Group VI: conventional nanohybrid resin composite/Tetric N-Ceram (Ivoclar/Vivadent). Each restorative material was used with its’ respective adhesive system. The restored teeth were stored in distilled water for 24 h at 37°C and then thermocycled (5-55°C, x1000). Specimens were subjected to a compressive load until fracture at a crosshead speed of 1mm/min. The data were analyzed using One-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD test (p<0.05). Fracture modes were also analyzed under stereomicroscope.
Results: No statistically significant differences were found in fracture resistance values of restorative materials(p>0.05). Sound premolar teeth (Group I) showed significantly higher fracture resistance than the other tested groups(p<0.05). Lowest values were obtained by negative control group (Group II) that were statistically significant than other groups (p<0.05). None of the samples in Group IV (Bulkfill flowable + nanoceramic resin composite/SureFil SDR Flow + Ceram X Mono) showed severe fracture involving tooth structure completely and/or longitudinal fracture.
Conclusions: The fracture resistance of endodontically-treated teeth restored with either bulkfill resin, bulkfill flowable + nanoceramic composite or fiber-reinforced + posterior composite were not different from conventional resin composite.
Methods: Seventy-two sound human maxillary premolar teeth were randomly divided into 6 groups (n=12). Teeth in first group left intact and tested as unprepared positive control (Group I). Teeth in the remaining five groups were prepared with MOD cavities and endodontically-treated. The teeth in one of the five groups (negative control-Group II) were unrestored. Rest of prepared cavities were restored as follows; Group III: Bulkfill resin composite/Filtek Bulk Fill (3M/ESPE); Group IV: Bulkfill flowable resin composite + nanoceramic resin composite/SureFil SDR Flow + Ceram X Mono (Dentsply); Group V: Fiber-reinforced composite + posterior resin composite/GCeverX posterior + G-aenial posterior (GC Corp.); Group VI: conventional nanohybrid resin composite/Tetric N-Ceram (Ivoclar/Vivadent). Each restorative material was used with its’ respective adhesive system. The restored teeth were stored in distilled water for 24 h at 37°C and then thermocycled (5-55°C, x1000). Specimens were subjected to a compressive load until fracture at a crosshead speed of 1mm/min. The data were analyzed using One-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD test (p<0.05). Fracture modes were also analyzed under stereomicroscope.
Results: No statistically significant differences were found in fracture resistance values of restorative materials(p>0.05). Sound premolar teeth (Group I) showed significantly higher fracture resistance than the other tested groups(p<0.05). Lowest values were obtained by negative control group (Group II) that were statistically significant than other groups (p<0.05). None of the samples in Group IV (Bulkfill flowable + nanoceramic resin composite/SureFil SDR Flow + Ceram X Mono) showed severe fracture involving tooth structure completely and/or longitudinal fracture.
Conclusions: The fracture resistance of endodontically-treated teeth restored with either bulkfill resin, bulkfill flowable + nanoceramic composite or fiber-reinforced + posterior composite were not different from conventional resin composite.