Fracture Resistance of Tunnel-Restored Teeth at Different Marginal Ridge Heights
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate fracture strength of restored tunnel-prepared teeth with different marginal ridge heights, using various adhesive systems and restorative materials. 130 intact premolars were randomly allocated into 13 groups based on 3 remaining marginal ridge heights (1.0 mm, 2.0 mm and 3.0 mm). 3 restorative systems (Optibond™ FL, selective enamel etching mode Single Bond Universal, Equia Forte Fil), positive control or tunnel prepared tooth without restoration, and intact unprepared teeth served as negative control. Tunnel preparation and restoration were performed. After 10,000 cycles of thermocycling, each specimen underwent fracture strength test and evaluated for mode of failure. The data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA, one-way ANOVA followed by a post hoc test. The results of the experiment showed that fracture strength values of tunnel restoration were significantly affected by remaining marginal ridge heights, but did not significantly affect by restorative systems. All restorative systems were unable to support tunnel preparation at remaining marginal ridge heights of 1.0 mm. At remaining marginal ridge heights of 3.0 mm, strength of tunnel preparation was equivalent to intact teeth or negative control. At remaining marginal ridge heights either of 2.0 mm or 3.0 mm, strength of tunnel restoration with Optibond™ FL, selective enamel etching mode Single Bond Universal, and Equia Forte Fil were as strong as intact teeth. It can be concluded that, tunnel restoration at remaining marginal ridge height of at least 2.0 mm with Optibond™ FL and paste-like bulk fill resin composite, selective enamel etching mode Single Bond Universal and paste-like bulk fill resin composite, or Equia Forte Fil was comparable to intact teeth.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
บทความ ข้อมูล เนื้อหา รูปภาพ ฯลฯ ที่ได้รับการลงตีพิมพ์ในวิทยาสารทันตแพทยศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยขอนแก่นถือเป็นลิขสิทธิ์เฉพาะของคณะทันตแพทยศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยขอนแก่น หากบุคคลหรือหน่วยงานใดต้องการนำทั้งหมดหรือส่วนหนึ่งส่วนใดไปเผยแพร่ต่อหรือเพื่อกระทำการใด ๆ จะต้องได้รับอนุญาตเป็นลายลักษณ์อักษร จากคณะทันตแพทยศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยขอนแก่นก่อนเท่านั้น
References
Knight GM. The use of adhesive materials in the conservative restoration of selected posterior teeth. Aust Dent J 1984;29(5):324–31.
Hunt PR. A modified class II cavity preparation for glass ionomer restorative materials. Quintessence Int Dent Dig 1984;15(10):1011–8.
Hasselrot L. Tunnel restorations in permanent teeth. A 7 year follow up study. Swed Dent J 1998;22(1–2):1–7.
Hörsted-Bindslev P, Heyde-Petersen B, Simonsen P, Baelum V. Tunnel or saucer-shaped restorations: a survival analysis. Clin Oral Investig 2005;9(4):233–8.
Pyk N, Mejàre I. Tunnel restorations in general practice. influence of some clinical variables on the success rate. Acta Odontol Scand 1999;57(4):195–200.
Ji W, Chen Z, Frencken JE. Strength of tunnel-restored teeth with different materials and marginal ridge height. Dent Mater 2009;25(11):1363–70.
Lynch CD, Opdam NJ, Hickel R, Brunton PA, Gurgan S, Kakaboura A, et al. Guidance on posterior resin composites: academy of Operative Dentistry - European Section. J Dent 2014;42(4):377–83.
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.
Covey D, Schulein TM, Kohout FJ. Marginal ridge strength of restored teeth with modified class II cavity preparations. J Am Dent Assoc 1989;118(2):199–202.
Kinomoto Y, Inoue Y, Ebisu S. A two-year comparison of resin-based composite tunnel and class II restorations in a randomized controlled trial. Am J Dent 2004; 17(4):253–6.
Preusse PJ, Winter J, Amend S, Roggendorf MJ, Dudek MC, Krämer N, et al. Class II resin composite restorations-tunnel vs. box-only in vitro and in vivo. Clin Oral Investig 2021;25(2):737–44.
Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay P, et al. Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent 2003;28(3):215–35.
Alex G. Universal adhesives: the next evolution in adhesive dentistry? Compend Contin Educ Dent 2015;36(1):15–26.
Xie D, Brantley WA, Culbertson BM, Wang G. Mechanical properties and microstructures of glass-ionomer cements. Dent Mater 2000;16(2):129–38.
Gurgan S, Kutuk ZB, Yalcin Cakir F, Ergin E. A randomized controlled 10 years follow up of a glass ionomer restorative material in class I and class II cavities. J Dent 2020;94:103175. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent. 2019.07.013.
Fasbinder DJ, Davis RD, Burgess JO. Marginal ridge strength in class II tunnel restorations. Am J Dent 1991;4(2):77–82.
Mergulhão VA, de Mendonça LS, de Albuquerque MS, Braz R. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars restored with different methods. Oper Dent 2019;44(1):E1–11.
Purk JH, Roberts RS, Elledge DA, Chappell RP, Eick JD. Marginal ridge strength of class II tunnel restorations. Am J Dent 1995;8(2):75–9.
Fasbinder DJ, Davis RD, Burgess JO. Marginal ridge strength in class II tunnel restorations. Am J Dent 1991;4(2):77–82.
Strand GV, Tveit AB, Gjerdet NR, Eide GE. Marginal ridge strength of teeth with tunnel preparations. Int Dent J 1995;45(2):117–23.
Hill FJ, Halaseh FJ. A laboratory investigation of tunnel restorations in premolar teeth. Br Dent J 1988; 165(10):364–7.
Strand GV, Tveit AB, Gjerdet NR. Marginal ridge strength of tunnel-prepared teeth restored with various adhesive filling materials. Cem Concr Res 1999; 29(5):645–50.
Lumley PJ, Fisher FJ. Tunnel restorations: a long-term pilot study over a minimum of five years. J Dent 1995;23(4):213–5.
Pilebro CE, van Dijken JW, Stenberg R. Durability of tunnel restorations in general practice: a three-year multicenter study. Acta Odontol Scand 1999;57(1):35–9.
de Lima Navarro MF, Pascotto RC, Borges AFS, Soares CJ, Raggio DP, Rios D, et al. Consensus on glass-ionomer cement thresholds for restorative indications. J Dent 2021;107:103609. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103609.
Balkaya H, Arslan S. A two-year clinical comparison of three different restorative materials in class II cavities. Oper Dent 2020;45(1):E32–42.
Wafaie RA, Ibrahim Ali A, El-Negoly SAER, Mahmoud SH. Five-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance of high-viscosity glass ionomer restorative systems in small class II restorations. J Esthet Restor Dent 2023;35(3):538–55.
Costa A, Xavier T, Noritomi P, Saavedra G, Borges A. The influence of elastic modulus of inlay materials on stress distribution and fracture of premolars. Oper Dent 2014;39(4):E160-170.
Srirekha A, Bashetty K. A comparative analysis of restorative materials used in abfraction lesions in tooth with and without occlusal restoration: three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Conserv Dent JCD 2013; 16(2):157–61.
Tay FR, Pashley DH. Monoblocks in root canals: a hypothetical or a tangible goal. J Endod 2007;33(4):391–8.
Rizzante FAP, Mondelli RFL, Furuse AY, Borges AFS, Mendonça G, Ishikiriama SK. Shrinkage stress and elastic modulus assessment of bulk-fill composites. J Appl Oral Sci Rev FOB 2019;27:e20180132. doi: 10.1590/1678-7757-2018-0132.
Yeo HW, Loo MY, Alkhabaz M, Li KC, Choi JJE, Barazanchi A. Bulk-fill direct restorative materials: an in vitro assessment of their physio-mechanical properties. Oral 2021;1(2):75–87.
Ozan G, Mert Eren M, Yıldırım Bılmez Z, Gurcan AT, Yucel Yucel Y. Comparison of elasticity modulus and nanohardness of various dental restorative materials. J Dent Mater Tech 2021;10(4). doi: 10.22038/jdmt.2021. 60978.1480.
Ausiello P, Apicella A, Davidson CL. Effect of adhesive layer properties on stress distribution in composite restorations--a 3D finite element analysis. Dent Mater 2002;18(4):295–303.
Schwendicke F, Müller A, Seifert T, Jeggle-Engbert LM, Paris S, Göstemeyer G. Glass hybrid versus composite for non-carious cervical lesions: survival, restoration quality and costs in randomized controlled trial after 3 years. J Dent 2021;110:103689. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent. 2021.103689.
Kemp-Scholte CM, Davidson CL. Complete marginal seal of class V resin composite restorations effected by increased flexibility. J Dent Res 1990;69(6):1240–3.
Ausiello P, Ciaramella S, Di Rienzo A, Lanzotti A, Ventre M, Watts DC. Adhesive class I restorations in sound molar teeth incorporating combined resin-composite and glass ionomer materials: CAD-FE modeling and analysis. Dent Mater 2019;35(10):1514–22.
Irie M, Suzuki K, Watts DC. Marginal and flexural integrity of three classes of luting cement, with early finishing and water storage. Dent Mater 2004;20(1):3–11.
Ausiello P, Ciaramella S, De Benedictis A, Lanzotti A, Tribst JPM, Watts DC. The use of different adhesive filling material and mass combinations to restore class II cavities under loading and shrinkage effects: a 3D-FEA. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin 2021; 24(5):485–95.
Vetromilla BM, Opdam NJ, Leida FL, Sarkis-Onofre R, Demarco FF, van der Loo MPJ, et al. Treatment options for large posterior restorations: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Am Dent Assoc 2020; 151(8):614-24.
Van Meerbeek B, Yoshihara K, Van Landuyt K, Yoshida Y, Peumans M. From Buonocore’s pioneering acid-etch technique to self-adhering restoratives. A status perspective of rapidly advancing dental adhesive technology. J Adhes Dent 2020;22(1):7–34.
Marchesi G, Frassetto A, Mazzoni A, Apolonio F, Diolosà M, Cadenaro M, et al. Adhesive performance of a multi-mode adhesive system: 1-year in vitro study. J Dent 2014;42(5):603–12.
de Paris Matos T, Perdigão J, de Paula E, Coppla F, Hass V, Scheffer RF, et al. Five-year clinical evaluation of a universal adhesive: a randomized double-blind trial. Dent Mater 2020;36(11):1474–85.
Fuentes MV, Perdigão J, Baracco B, Giráldez I, Ceballos L. Effect of an additional bonding resin on the 5-year performance of a universal adhesive: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 2023;27(2):837–48.
Peumans M, De Munck J, Van Landuyt KL, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. A 13-year clinical evaluation of two three-step etch-and-rinse adhesives in non-carious class-V lesions. Clin Oral Investig 2012; 16(1):129–37.
De Munck J, Luehrs AK, Poitevin A, Van Ende A, Van Meerbeek B. Fracture toughness versus micro-tensile bond strength testing of adhesive-dentin interfaces. Dent Mater 2013;29(6):635–44.
Flury S, Peutzfeldt A, Lussi A. Two pre-treatments for bonding to non-carious cervical root dentin. Am J Dent 2015;28(6):362–6.
Haak R, Werner MS, Schneider H, Häfer M, Schulz-Kornas E. Clinical outcomes and quantitative margin analysis of a universal adhesive using a randomized clinical trial over three years. J Clin Med 2022; 11(23):6910. doi: 10.3390/jcm11236910.
Sabbagh J, El Masri L, Fahd JC, Nahas P. A three-year randomized clinical trial evaluating direct posterior composite restorations placed with three self-etch adhesives. Biomater Investig Dent 2021;8(1):92–103.
Yu OY, Zaeneldin AM, Hamama HHH, Mei ML, Patel N, Chu CH. Conservative composite resin restoration for proximal caries - two case reports. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent 2020;12:415–22.
Wiegand A, Attin T. Treatment of proximal caries lesions by tunnel restorations. Dent Mater 2007; 23(12):1461–7.
Pilebro CE, van Dijken JW. Analysis of factors affecting failure of glass cermet tunnel restorations in a multi-center study. Clin Oral Investig 2001;5(2):96–101.
Strand GV, Tveit AB, Espelid I. Variations among operators in the performance of tunnel preparations in vitro. Scand J Dent Res 1994;102(3):151–5.
Chu CH, Mei ML, Cheung C, Nalliah RP. Restoring proximal caries lesions conservatively with tunnel restorations. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent 2013;5:43–50.
Nizami MZI, Yeung C, Yin IX, Wong AWY, Chu CH, Yu OY. Tunnel restoration: a minimally invasive dentistry practice. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent 2022; 14:207–16.
Strand GV, Nordbø H, Tveit AB, Espelid I, Wikstrand K, Eide GE. A 3-year clinical study of tunnel restorations. Eur J Oral Sci 1996;104(4 (Pt 1)):384–9.