Comparative evaluation of the fracture resistance of three different recent composite systems in large class II MOD cavities

An in vitro study

https://doi.org/10.53730/ijhs.v6nS2.8336

Authors

  • Baljeet Singh Hora Professor, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Rama Dental College, Hospital and Research Centre
  • Asheesh Sawhny Professor and Head of Department, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Rama Dental College, Hospital and Research Centre
  • Karuna Singh Sawhny Reader, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Rama Dental College, Hospital and Research Centre
  • Debasmita Ghosh Postgraduate Student, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Rama Dental College, Hospital and Research Centre
  • Pragati Barukial Postgraduate Student, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Rama Dental College, Hospital and Research Centre
  • Mukund V Singh Associate professor, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Rural Dental College, Prarava Institute of Medical Sciences

Keywords:

comparative evaluation, fracture resistance, class II MOD

Abstract

Background: For severely mutilated teeth, this research evaluated the most contemporary restorative material. Aim: Repair of Class II MOD cavities in premolars with Ever X posterior in the recent past, Beautifil restorative, and the Universal TetricEevoCream composite systems will be evaluated and compared in this research. “Materials and Methods:” Sixty human maxillary premolars were chosen for the study. As a check, we utilised a group of fifteen healthy teeth (Group 1). The remaining 45 teeth were fitted with MOD cavities of standardised dimensions and randomly assigned to one of three groups (Groups 2, 3, and 4) (n = 15). They used Beautifil restoratives for teeth in Group 2, GC Ever X posterior for teeth in Group 3, Universal Tetric EvoCream for teeth in Group 4. Newtons were used to measure the strength of a material (N). Results: Group 4 exhibited the greatest mean fracture resistance of the four groups, followed by Groups 3, 1, and 2 and finally Group 4. Conclusion: It was found that the Universal Tetric EvoCream composite had the greatest fracture resistance among the test groups. There was a substantial statistical difference between all of the groups.

 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Cötert HS, Sen BH, Balkan M. In vitro comparison of cuspal fracture resistances of posterior teeth restored with various adhesive restorations. Int J Prosthodont 2001;14:374-8.

Moorthy A, Hogg CH, Dowling AH, Grufferty BF, Benetti AR, Fleming GJ. Cuspal deflection and microleakage in premolar teeth restored with bulk fill flowable resin based composite base materials. J Dent 2012;40:500-5.

Aniket K, Shweta T, Rajkumar B, Vishesh G. Comparative evaluation of fracture resistance of fibre reinforced composite, flowable composite and a core build-up material. Int J Curr Res 2016;6:378-81.

Bilgi PS, Shah NC, Patel PP, Vaid S. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with nanohybrid, silorane, and fibre reinforced composite. J Conserv Dent 2016;4:364-367.

Estelite Sigma Quick 5-year Clinical Performance Report. The Dental Advisor; 2014.

St. Georges AJ, Sturdevant JR, Swift EJ Jr., Thompson JY. Fracture resistance of prepared teeth restored with bonded inlay restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89:551-7.

Schultrich B. Strength of cemented carbides, in mechanical properties of brittle materials, in modern theories and experimental evidence. J Biomed Res 2011;25:418-24.

Jagadish S, Yogesh BG. Fracture resistance of teeth with class 2 silver amalgam, posterior composite, and glass cermet restorations. Oper Dent 1990;15:42-7.

Johnson EW, Castaldi CR, Gau DJ, Wysocki GP. Stress pattern variations on operatively prepared human teeth studied by three- dimensional photo-elasticity. J Dent Res 1968;97:1075-8.

Bonilla ED, Mardirossian G, Caputo AA. Fracture toughness of posterior resin composites. Quintessence Int 2001;32:206-10.

Adabo GL, dos Santos Cruz CA, Fonseca RG, Vaz LG. The volumetric fraction of inorganic particles and the flexural strength of composites for posterior teeth. J Dent 2003;31:353-9.

Sabbagh J, Ryelandt L, Bachérius L, Biebuyck JJ, Vreven J, Lambrechts P, et al. Characterization of the inorganic fraction of resin composites. J Oral Rehabil 2004;31:1090-101.

Willems G, Lambrechts P, Braem M, Celis JP, Vanherle G. A classification of dental composites according to their morphological and mechanical characteristics. Dent Mater 1992;8:310-9.

Bremer BD, Geurtsen W. Molar fracture resistance after adhesive restoration with ceramic inlays or resin-based composites. Am J Dent 2001;14:216-20.

Mitra SB, Wu D, Holmes BN. An application of nanotechnology in advanced dental materials. J Am Dent Assoc 2003;134:1382-90.

de Moraes RR, Gonçalves Lde S, Lancellotti AC, Consani S, Correr-Sobrinho L, Sinhoreti MA, et al. Nanohybrid resin composites: Nanofiller loaded materials or traditional microhybrid resins? Oper Dent 2009;34:551-7.

Czasch P, Ilie N. In vitro comparison of mechanical properties and degree of cure of bulk fill composites. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17:227 35.

Ilie N, Stark K. Curing behaviour of high viscosity bulk fill composites. J Dent 2014;42:977-85.

3M FiltekTM Bulk Fill. Posterior Restorative. Technical Product Profile. Available from: http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/984592O/filtekbulk-fill-posterior-re. [Last accessed on 2018 May 15].

Tokuyama Sigma Estellite Quick. Technical Product Profile. Available from: https://www.tokuyama-us.com/wp-content/uploads/resources/ Estelite-Sigma-Quick-Product.pdf. [Last accessed on 2018 May 11].

Jain A, Sonkusre S, Tavane PN, Singh A, Gupta P, Nayak BG, et al. Evaluation of microleakage between silorane 2011;42:579-87.

Abouelleil H, Pradelle N, Villat C, Attik N, Colon P, Grosgogeat B, et al. Comparison of mechanical properties of a new fiber reinforced composite and bulk filling composites. Restor Dent Endod 2015;40:262 70.

GC Ever X Posterior. Technical Product Profile. Available from: https:// www.tokuyama-us.com/wp-content/uploads/resources/Estelite-SigmaQuick-Product.pdf. [Last accessed on 2018 May 11].

Zahraa Abdulaali Al-Ibraheemi , Huda Abbas Abdullah , Nada Abdlameer Jawad , and Julfikar Haider : Assessing Fracture Resistance of Restored Premolars with Novel Composite Materials: An In Vitro Study; Hindawi International Journal of Dentistry; Volume 2021, Article ID 5512708.

Published

02-06-2022

How to Cite

Hora, B. S., Sawhny, A., Sawhny, K. S., Ghosh, D., Barukial, P., & Singh, M. V. (2022). Comparative evaluation of the fracture resistance of three different recent composite systems in large class II MOD cavities: An in vitro study. International Journal of Health Sciences, 6(S2), 12581–12587. https://doi.org/10.53730/ijhs.v6nS2.8336

Issue

Section

Peer Review Articles

Most read articles by the same author(s)