The Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Maxillary Premolars Restored with Direct Composite Onlay Using Different Resin Composite
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to evaluate fracture resistance and fracture pattern of endodontically treated upper first premolars that were restored with direct onlay technique using different resin composite materials. Seventy upper first premolars were divided into seven groups (n=10). The first ten premolars were left intact (INT) as the negative control group, while the remaining premolars received class II MOD cavity preparation and conventional root canal treatment. The positive control group was restored with interim restoration (IRM), whereas the experimental groups were prepared for direct composite onlay and were then restored with Filtek™ Z250 (Z250), or Filtek™ Bulk Fill Posterior (FBF), or SonicFill™ 2 (SBF), or EverX Posterior plus Filtek™ Z250 (EXP) or Build-It™ FR plus Filtek™ Z250 (BFR), as designed. All specimens were stored in 100% humidity at 37ºC for 24 hours before the fracture test. Each specimen was mounted and aligned at 45-degree angle to the horizontal plane. Measurement of fracture resistance was done with the universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/sec using a 3 mm diameter metal ball pressing at palatal incline plane of buccal cusp. The maximum force at the fracture (mean±SD) was 654.47±105.32 N, 314.20±93.82 N, 583.61±135.04 N, 541.84±144.87 N, 598.62±136.45 N, 600.65±166.69 N and 587.37±91.09 N for INT, IRM, Z250, FBF, SBF, EXP and BFR, respectively. One-way ANOVA with Tukey's HSD test showed no significant difference in the mean maximum force at fracture among the intact teeth group and all direct composite onlay groups (p>0.05). The IRM group had the lowest fracture resistance value, which differed statistically from the other groups ((p<0.05). More than 70% of fractures in group INT, IRM, Z250, and SBF were restorable while only half of group FBF, EXP and BFR were considered restorable. Conclusion could be drawn that direct composite onlay restorations of endodontically treated upper first premolar with different materials had comparable fracture resistance.
Article Details
บทความ ข้อมูล เนื้อหา รูปภาพ ฯลฯ ที่ได้รับการลงตีพิมพ์ในวิทยาสารทันตแพทยศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยขอนแก่นถือเป็นลิขสิทธิ์เฉพาะของคณะทันตแพทยศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยขอนแก่น หากบุคคลหรือหน่วยงานใดต้องการนำทั้งหมดหรือส่วนหนึ่งส่วนใดไปเผยแพร่ต่อหรือเพื่อกระทำการใด ๆ จะต้องได้รับอนุญาตเป็นลายลักษณ์อักษร จากคณะทันตแพทยศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยขอนแก่นก่อนเท่านั้น
References
Dimitriu B, Vârlan C, Suciu I, Vârlan V, Bodnar D. Current considerations concerning endodontically treated teeth: alteration of hard dental tissues and biomechanical properties following endodontic therapy. J Med Life 2009;2(1):60-5.
Sorensen JA, Martinoff JT. Intracoronal reinforcement and coronal coverage: a study of endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1984;51(6):780-4.
Peroz I, Blankenstein F, Lange KP, Naumann M. Restoring endodontically treated teeth with posts and cores--a review. Quintessence Int 2005;36(9):737-46.
Torabinejad M, Walton R, Torabinejad M, Walton R. Endodontics: principles and practice. 4thed. Missouri: Saunders;2009.
Suksaphar W, Banomyong D, Jirathanyanatt T, Ngoenwiwatkul Y. Survival rates against fracture of endodontically treated posterior teeth restored with full-coverage crowns or resin composite restorations: a systematic review. Restor Dent Endod 2017;42(3):157-67.
ElAyouti A, Serry MI, Geis-Gerstorfer J, Lost C. Influence of cusp coverage on the fracture resistance of premolars with endodontic access cavities. Int Endod J 2011;44(6):543-9.
Chesterman J, Jowett A, Gallacher A, Nixon P. Bulk-fill resin-based composite restorative materials: a review. Br Dent J 2017;222(5):337-44.
Ilie N, Bucuta S, Draenert M. Bulk-fill resin-based composites: an in vitro assessment of their mechanical performance. Oper Dent 2013;38(6):618-25.
Veloso SRM, Lemos CAA, de Moraes SLD, do Egito Vasconcelos BC, Pellizzer EP, de Melo Monteiro GQ. Clinical performance of bulk-fill and conventional resin composite restorations in posterior teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig 2019; 23(1): 221-33.
Garoushi S, Sailynoja E, Vallittu PK, Lassila L. Physical properties and depth of cure of a new short fiber reinforced composite. Dent Mater 2013;29(8):835-41.
Atalay C, Yazici AR, Horuztepe A, Nagas E, Ertan A, Ozgunaltay G. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with bulk fill, bulk fill flowable, fiber-reinforced, and conventional resin composite. Oper Dent 2016;41(5):131-40.
Kemaloglu H, Emin Kaval M, Turkun M, Micoogullari Kurt S. Effect of novel restoration techniques on the fracture resistance of teeth treated endodontically: An in vitro study. Dent Mater J 2015;34(5):618-22.
Woelfel JB, Scheid RC, Weiss G. Woelfel's dental anatomy. 8thed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams&Wilkins;2012.
Reel DC, Mitchell RJ. Fracture resistance of teeth restored with Class II composite restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1989;61(2):177-80.
Alshiddi IF, Aljinbaz A. Fracture resistance of endo-dontically treated teeth restored with indirect composite inlay and onlay restorations - An in vitro study. Saudi Dent J 2016;28(1):49-55.
Burke FJ. Tooth fracture in vivo and in vitro. J Dent 1992;20(3):131-9.
Cavel WT, Kelsey WP, Blankenau RJ. An in vivo study of cuspal fracture. J Prosthet Dent 1985;53(1):38-42.
Ausiello P, Rengo S, Davidson CL, Watts DC. Stress distributions in adhesively cemented ceramic and resin-composite Class II inlay restorations: a 3D-FEA study. Dent Mater 2004;20(9):862-72.
Dejak B, Mlotkowski A. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of strength and adhesion of composite resin versus ceramic inlays in molars. J Prosthet Dent 2008;99(2):131-40.
Zimmerli B, Strub M, Jeger F, Stadler O, Lussi A. Composite materials: composition, properties and clinical applications. A literature review. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 2010;120(11):972-86.
Kim KH, Ong JL, Okuno O. The effect of filler loading and morphology on the mechanical properties of contemporary composites. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87(6): 642-9.
Masouras K, Silikas N, Watts DC. Correlation of filler content and elastic properties of resin-composites. Dent Mater 2008;24(7):932-9.
Rosatto CM, Bicalho AA, Verissimo C, Braganca GF, Rodrigues MP, Tantbirojn D, et al. Mechanical properties, shrinkage stress, cuspal strain and fracture resistance of molars restored with bulk-fill composites and incremental filling technique. J Dent 2015;43(12): 1519-28.
Sabbagh J, Vreven J, Leloup G. Dynamic and static moduli of elasticity of resin-based materials. Dent Mater 2002;18(1):64-71.
Bicalho AA, Tantbirojn D, Versluis A, Soares CJ. Effect of occlusal loading and mechanical properties of resin composite on stress generated in posterior restorations. Am J Dent 2014;27(3):129-33.
Rizzante FAP, Mondelli RFL, Furuse AY, Borges AFS, Mendonca G, Ishikiriama SK. Shrinkage stress and elastic modulus assessment of bulk-fill composites. J Appl Oral Sci 2019;27:e20180132.
Garoushi S, Vallittu PK, Lassila LV. Short glass fiber reinforced restorative composite resin with semi-inter penetrating polymer network matrix. Dent Mater 2007; 23(11):1356-62.
Meenakumari C, Bhat KM, Bansal R, Singh N. Evaluation of mechanical properties of newer nano-posterior restorative resin composites: An in vitro study. Contemp Clin Dent 2018;9(1):142-6.
Korioth TW, Versluis A. Modeling the mechanical behavior of the jaws and their related structures by finite element (FE) analysis. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 1997;8(1): 90-104.
Kuroe T, Tachibana K, Tanino Y, Satoh N, Ohata N, Sano H, et al. Contraction stress of composite resin build-up procedures for pulpless molars. J Adhes Dent 2003;5(1): 71-7.
Bicalho AA, Valdivia AD, Barreto BC, Tantbirojn D, Versluis A, Soares CJ. Incremental filling technique and composite material--part II: shrinkage and shrinkage stresses. Oper Dent 2014;39(2):83-92.
Jadhav S, Hegde V, Aher G, Fajandar N. Influence of light curing units on failure of directcomposite restorations. J Conserv Dent 2011;14(3):225-7.