10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Fracture Resistance of Teeth Restored with Direct and Indirect Composite Restorations

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective:

          Tooth fracture is a common dental problem. By extension of cavity dimensions, the remaining tooth structure weakens and occlusal forces may cause tooth fracture. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the fracture resistance of teeth restored with direct and indirect composite restorations.

          Materials and Methods:

          Sixty-five sound maxillary premolar teeth were chosen and randomly divided into five groups each comprising thirteen. Fifty-two teeth received mesio-occluso-distal (MOD) cavities with 4.5mm bucco-lingual width, 4mm pulpal depth and 3mm gingival depth and were divided into the following four groups. G-1: restored with direct composite (Z-250, 3M/ESPE) with cusp coverage, G-2: restored with direct composite (Z-250) without cusp coverage, G-3: restored with direct composite (Gradia, GC-international) with cusp coverage, G-4: restored with indirect composite (Gradia, GC-International) with cusp coverage. Intact teeth were used in G-5 as control. The teeth were subjected to a compressive axial loading using a 4 mm diameter rod in a universal testing machine with 1 mm/min speed. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey tests.

          Results:

          The mean fracture strength recorded was: G-1: 1148.46N±262, G-2: 791.54N±235, G-3: 880.00N±123, G-4: 800.00N±187, G-5: 1051.54N±345. ANOVA revealed significant differences between groups (p<0.05). Tukey test showed significant difference between group 1 and the other groups. There was no significant difference among other groups.

          Conclusion:

          Direct composite (Z-250) with cusp coverage is a desirable treatment for weakened teeth. Treatment with Z-250 without cusp coverage, direct and indirect Gradia with cusp coverage restored the strength of the teeth to the level of intact teeth.

          Related collections

          Most cited references38

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          An evaluation of endodontically treated vertically fractured teeth.

          For this survey, 92 vertically fractured endodontically treated teeth were evaluated clinically and radiographically before and after extraction. The maxillary second premolars (27.2%) and mesial roots of the mandibular molars (24%) were the most fractured teeth. In 67.4% of the teeth, a solitary buccal pocket was present; in 34.8%, a fistula frequently appeared closer to the gingival margin than to the apical area. A lateral radiolucency or a combination of lateral and periapical radiolucency was found in more than half of the cases. The general practitioners correctly diagnosed vertical root fracture in only one-third of the 92 fractured teeth in this survey.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Influence of restorative technique on the biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated maxillary premolars. Part I: fracture resistance and fracture mode.

            Unresolved controversy exists concerning the preferred cavity design and restorative technique used to restore endodontically treated maxillary premolars to improve their resistance to fracture under occlusal load. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the fracture resistance, stress distribution, and cusp deformation of endodontically treated human maxillary premolars restored with different materials. The study is divided into 2 parts. In Part I, fracture resistance and fracture mode were determined. Seventy noncarious human maxillary premolars were selected and divided into 7 groups (n=10). The control group, ST, consisted of sound unprepared teeth. Teeth in the other 6 groups were endodontically treated and each received 1 of 2 cavity preparation designs: MODd, direct mesio-occlusal-distal preparation; MODi, indirect mesio-occlusal-distal preparation. Teeth were restored with 4 types of material: AM, MODd restored with amalgam; CR, MODd restored with composite resin; LPR, MODi restored with laboratory-processed composite resin; and LGC, MODi restored with leucite-reinforced glass ceramic. The fracture resistance (N) was assessed under compressive load in a universal testing machine. The data were analyzed by 1-way ANOVA and the Tukey HSD test (alpha =.05). Fracture modes were recorded based on the degree of tooth structure involvement and restoration damage. Statistical analysis showed that the ST group presented the highest fracture resistance values. The restored groups showed significantly higher fracture resistance values compared to the nonrestored groups. The groups restored with adhesive techniques (LPR, CR, and LGC) presented significantly higher fracture resistance values than the group restored with the nonadhesive technique (AM) (P<.001). The catastrophic fractures were prevalent in MODd, MODi, AM, and LPR groups, and less severe fractures were found in ST and LGC groups. For the CR group, there was no prevalent fracture mode. Teeth with the greatest amount of remaining tooth structure and those restored using adhesive technology showed higher fracture resistance values. There was great variation in the type of fracture among groups.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Porcelain versus composite inlays/onlays: effects of mechanical loads on stress distribution, adhesion, and crown flexure.

              This study used 2-D finite element modeling to simulate cuspal flexure and stresses at the surface and tooth-restoration interface of a restored maxillary molar using three restorative materials; the influence of four inlay/onlay preparation configurations on stress distribution within the complex was also investigated. A buccolingual cross-section of an intact molar was digitized and used to create 2-D models restored with different restorative materials (feldspathic porcelain, high- and low-elastic modulus composites) and tooth preparations (small and large inlays, small and large onlays). Two simulated 25-N oblique loads were applied to the cusps. The tangential stress for each finite element node located at the tooth surface, interfacial stress, and relative cuspal flexure were analyzed. All materials and tooth preparations exhibited similar surface tangential stress patterns, with a definite compressive area at the external cusp ridges, a tensile zone at the occlusal surface, and compression stress peaks at the CEJ. The low-elastic modulus composite showed reduced tensile stresses at its surface but increased tension at the dentin-adhesive interface when compared to ceramics. All types of onlays demonstrated a majority of compressive interfacial stresses, while inlays showed a majority of tensile stresses. The interfacial tension at the dentin level increased with the flexibility of the restorative material. Only the large ceramic onlay displayed almost pure compression at the interface. Composite-restored teeth exhibited increased crown flexure, while porcelain-restored teeth showed increased crown stiffness. Porcelain inlays/onlays featured more detrimental stresses at the occlusal surface but better potential protection against debonding at the dentin-restoration interface compared to composite inlays/onlays. Ceramic onlays/overlays seem to represent an effective answer to restore severely damaged posterior teeth.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Dent (Tehran)
                J Dent (Tehran)
                Journal of Dentistry (Tehran, Iran)
                Tehran University of Medical Sciences
                1735-2150
                2008-2185
                September 2013
                30 September 2013
                : 10
                : 5
                : 417-425
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Associate Professor, Iranian Center for Endodontic Research, Research Institute of Dental Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
                [2 ]Associate Professor, Dental Research Center, Research Institute of Dental Sciences of Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran,Iran
                [3 ]Private Practice, Preventive Dentistry Research Center, Research Institute of Dental Sciences of, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
                [4 ]Reseach Fellow, Preventive Dentistry Research Center, Research Institute of Dental Sciences of, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: Ghasemi, Dental Research Center, Research Institute of Dental Sciences of Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran, amir_gh_th@ 123456yahoo.com
                Article
                jod-10-417
                4025423
                24910649
                128c0db0-7d82-4cfa-a8df-6b4bf8ee7330
                Copyright © Dental Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0), which allows users to read, copy, distribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited properly.

                History
                : 28 March 2013
                : 23 June 2013
                Categories
                Original Article

                Dentistry
                tooth fracture,composite resins,bicuspid
                Dentistry
                tooth fracture, composite resins, bicuspid

                Comments

                Comment on this article