Comparative evaluation of fracture resistance of posterior teeth restored with recent composite resins: An in vitro study

Prateek J Pachore; Shraddha Chokshi; Zarana Sanghvi; Bhaumik D Patel; Krutika Chudasama; Nidhi Malde

doi:10.53730/ijhs.v6nS8.13196

Authors

Prateek J Pachore
prateekjpachore@gmail.com
Senior Lecturer, Conservative Dentistry, Endodontics and Aesthetic Dentistry, Narsinhbhai Patel Dental College & Hospital, Sankalchand Patel University, Visnagar
Shraddha Chokshi Proffesor & Head, Conservative Dentistry, Endodontics and Aesthetic Dentistry, Ahmedabad Dental College. Bhadaj-Ranchhodpura road, Ahmedabad
Zarana Sanghvi Professor, Conservative Dentistry, Endodontics and Aesthetic Dentistry, Ahmedabad Dental College. Bhadaj-Ranchhodpura road, Ahmedabad
Bhaumik D Patel Senior Lecturer, Conservative Dentistry, Endodontics and Aesthetic Dentistry, Narsinhbhai Patel Dental College & Hospital, Sankalchand Patel University, Visnagar
Krutika Chudasama Senior Lecturer, Conservative Dentistry, Endodontics and Aesthetic Dentistry, College of Dental Science and Hospital, K.J. Mehta TB Hospital Trust, Amargadh, Bhavnagar University, Bhavnagar, Gujarat
Nidhi Malde Consultant Endodontist, Jamnagar

Keywords:

fracture resistance, nanohybrid composite, micro hybrid composite, nanofilled composite

Abstract

Aim: Comparative evaluation of the fracture resistance of maxillary molar teeth restored with recent composite resins. Materials and Methods: Fifty freshly extracted molar teeth were selected. Ten specimens served as control –unrestored, unprepared, intact (Group 1). Mesio-occluso-distal cavity preparation was prepared on the rest of the specimens. These specimens were further divided into four groups: prepared but unrestored (Group 2), teeth restored with with Nano hybrid composite (Tetric N-Ceram, Ivoclar Vivadent). (Group 3), teeth restored with Micro hybrid composite (Polofil supra). (Group 4), and teeth restored with Nano filled composite (Filtek Z-350). (Group 5). The specimens were then subjected to compressive axial load using universal testing machine. Data were analyzed using data were analyzed using Statistical package for social sciences software (SPSS v 20.0, IBM Corp.) Results: The positive control group exhibited highest fracture load (377±63.8 Kg-force). There was less difference seen in between the all recent composite resins (P > 0.05). There is significant difference noted in fracture load between control group and treatment groups Conclusion: Type of the composite restoration makes little difference in the fracture toughness while restoring MOD cavities.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

3M ESPE Filtek™ Z350. Universal Restorative System.

Agrawal A, Mala K. An in vitro comparative evaluation of physical properties of four different types of core materials. J Conserv Dent. 2014;17(3):230–233.

Akbarian G, Ameri H, Joseph E, Ghavamnasiri M. Fracture Resistance of Premolar Teeth Restored with Silorane-Based or Dimethacrylate-Based Composite Resins. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry 2014; 26(3): 200–207.

Ata M, Mostafa S. Fracture resistance of premolars teeth restored by silorane, nanohybrid and two types of fiber-reinforced composite: an in-vitro study. Tanta Dent J 2017; 14: 216-19

Ausiello P, De Gee AJ, Rengo S, Davidson CL. Fracture resistance of endodontically-treated premolars adhesively restored. Am J Dent 1997; 10(5): 237–41.

Awad M, Salem V, Almuhaizaa M, Aljeaidi Z. Contemporary teaching of direct posterior composite restorations in Saudi dental schools. The Saudi Journal for Dental Research; 8(2): 42-51.

Bhardwaj T, Solmon P, Parameswaran A. Tooth restored with composite resin- a comparative analysis.Trends in Biomaterials & Artificial Organs 2002; 15: 57– 60.

Blum IR, Lynch CD, Wilson NH. Factors influencing repair of dental restorations with resin composite. Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dentistry. 2014; 6:81-87.

Bohaty BS, Ye Q, Misra A, Sene F, Spencer P. Posterior composite restoration update: focus on factors influencing form and function. Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dentistry. 2013; 5: 33-42.

Bonilla ED, Mardirossian G, Caputo AA. Fracture toughness of various core build‐up materials. J Prosthodont. 2000;9(1):14–18.

Cheung W. A review of the management of endodontically treated teeth: post, core and the final restoration. J Am Dent Assoc. 2005;136(5):611–619.

Cramer NB, Stansbury JW, Bowman CN. Recent Advances and Developments in Composite Dental Restorative Materials. Journal of Dental Research. 2011; 90(4):402-416.

Dalpino PH, Francischone CE, Ishikiriama A, Franco EB. Fracture resistance of teeth directly and indirectly restored with composite resin and indirectly restored with ceramic material. Am J Dent 2002; 15(6): 389–94.

de Freitas CR, Miranda ML, Andrade MF, Flores VH, Vaz LG, GuimaraesC. Resistance to maxillary premolar fractures after restoration on class II preparations with resin composite or ceromer. Quintessence Int 2002; 33(8): 589– 94.

Hamouda IM, Shehata SH. Fracture resistance of posterior teeth restored with modern restorative materials. Journal of Biomedical Research. 2011; 25(6):418- 424.

Hegde V, Sali AV. Fracture resistance of posterior teeth restored with high- viscosity bulk-fill resin composites in comparison to the incremental placement technique. Journal of Conservative Dentistry : JCD. 2017; 20(5): 360-364.

Hood JA. Biomechanics of the intact, prepared and restored tooth: some clinical implications. Int Dent J 1991; 41(1): 25–32.

Ilie N, Hickel R, Valceanu AS, Huth KC. Fracture toughness of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig. 2012;16(2): 489-498.

Ilie N, Hickel R. Resin composite restorative materials. Aust Dent J. 2011 Jun;56 Suppl 1:59-66.

Jensen ME, Redford DA, Williams BT, Gardner F. Posterior etched-porcelain restorations: an in vitro study. Compendium 1987; 8(8):615–7, 620–2.

Joynt RB, Wieczkowski G Jr, Klockowski R, Davis EL. Effects of composite restoration on resistance to cuspal fracture in posterior teeth, J Prosthet Dent. 1987; 57:431- 435.

Kikuti W, Chaves F, Hipólito V, Rodrigues F, D’Alpino P. Fracture resistance of teeth restored with different resin-based restorative systems. Braz Oral Res. 2012; 26(3): 275-81.

Kovarik RE, Breeding LC, Caughman WF. Fatigue life of three core materials under simulated chewing conditions. J Prosthet Dent. 1992;68(4):584–590.

Macek MD, Beltrán-Aguilar ED, Lockwood SA, Malvitz DM. Updated comparison of the caries susceptibility of various morphological types of permanent teeth. J Public Health Dent 2003; 63: 174-182

Manji F, Fejerskov O: An epidemiological approach to dental caries; in Thylstrup A, Fejerskov O (eds):Textbook of Clinical Cariology. Copenhagen, Munksgaard, 1994, pp 159-191.

Moosavi H, Zeynali M, Pour ZH. Fracture Resistance of Premolars Restored by VariousTypes and placement Techniques of Resin Composites. International Journal of Dentistry. 2012; 2012:973641.

Nagasiri R, Chitmongkolsuk S. Long-term survival of endodontically treated molars without crown coverage: a retrospective cohort study. J Prosthet Dent. 2005;93(2):164–170.

Polofil® Supra • Solobond M. Two strong materials for durable restorations.

Reel DC, Mitchell RJ. Fracture resistance of teeth restored with Class II composite restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1989; 61(2):177–80.

Rezvani MB, Mohammadi Basir M, Mollaverdi F, Moradi Z, Sobout A. Comparison of the Effect of Direct and Indirect Composite Resin Restorations on the Fracture

Santos MJ, Bezerra RB. Fracture resistance of maxillary premolars restored with direct and indirect adhesive techniques. J Can Dent Assoc. 2005; 71(8): 585a-d.

Saunders WP, Saunders EM. Coronal leakage as a cause of failure in root‐canal therapy: a review. Endod Dent Traumatol. 1994;10(3):105–108.

Scientific Documentation. Tetric®N-Ceram / Tetric®N-Flow / Tetric® N-Bond / Tetric ® N-Bond Self-Etch.

Sengun A, Cobankara FK, Orucoglu H. Effect of a new restoration technique on fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth. Dent Traumatol. 2008;24(2):214–219.

Siqueira JF, Jr, Rôças IN, Lopes HP, et al. Coronal leakage of two root canal sealers containing calcium hydroxide after exposure to human saliva. J Endod. 1999;25(1):14–16.

Siso S, Hurmuzlu F, Turgut M, Altundas E¸ Serper A. Fracture resistance of the buccal cusps of root filled maxillary premolar teeth restored with various techniques. International Endodontic Journal 2007; 40(3): 161–168,

Swapna MU, Koshy S, Kumar A, Nanjappa N, Benjamin S, Nainan MT. Comparing marginal microleakage of three Bulk Fill composites in Class II cavities using confocal microscope: An in vitro study. Journal of Conservative Dentistry : JCD. 2015; 18(5):409-413.

Taha D, Abdel-Fatah , Abdel-Samad A, Mahmoud S. Fracture resistance of maxillary premolars with Class II MOD cavities restored with ormocer nanofilled, and nanoceramic composite restorative systems. Quintessence International 2011; 42 (7): 579-587.

Vale WA. Cavity preparation. Irish Dent Rev 1956; 33–41.

Watts DC, Wilson NH, Burke FJ. Indirect composite preparation width and depth and tooth fracture resistance. Am J Dent 1995; 8(1):15–9.