The Effects of Endodontic Access Cavity Preparation Design on the Fracture Strength of Endodontically Treated Teeth: Traditional Versus Conservative Preparation

2018 ◽  
Vol 44 (5) ◽  
pp. 800-805 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taha Özyürek ◽  
Özlem Ülker ◽  
Ebru Özsezer Demiryürek ◽  
Fikret Yılmaz
2018 ◽  
Vol 44 (9) ◽  
pp. 1416-1421 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giacomo Corsentino ◽  
Eugenio Pedullà ◽  
Laura Castelli ◽  
Marzia Liguori ◽  
Valentina Spicciarelli ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 681-686
Author(s):  
Mohammed Mustafa ◽  
Zaid A. AlJeaidi ◽  
Ali Robaian AlQahtani ◽  
Mohammed Ali Salem Abuelqomsan ◽  
Raneem Suleiman Alofi ◽  
...  

Background: A perfect balance needs to be maintained between various types of endodontic access cavity preparation designs like - Traditional and conservative designed preparation to have access to the root canal system for proper cleaning and shaping of root canals without compromising the fracture resistance of the tooth structure. Aims and Objectives: We aimed to assess as well as draw comparisons of resistance against fracture of remaining tooth structure post the endodontic treatment after preparing access cavity through a variety of techniques so that we can estimate which type of cavity design technique will help endodontically treated teeth to withstand excessive load without fracture. Methods: Forty-two intact teeth (mandibular molars) were randomly selected and then were assigned to 07 different groups, inclusive of control and test groups. Various designs of access cavity preparation were done on sample teeth. The groups were divided based on different access cavity preparation designs as well as residual walls. The samples were then mounted on a composite cylinder, which was loaded under a mechanical testing machine at 0.5mm/min speed till the tooth structure fractured. This measurement of force was denoted in newton. The later analysis was carried out with the help of two-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) as well as Tukey’s post-hoc statistical tests. Results: There was negligible statistically relevant variance in strength towards fracture between traditional and conservative designs in teeth having three remaining walls. However, teeth with only two remaining walls fractured easily. Conclusion: Fracture resistance of teeth with remaining 03 residual walls did not show any significant difference among Traditional (TEC) and Conservative Cavity (CEC) design groups, but increased fracture strength was reported in CEC with 02 residual walls.


2014 ◽  
Vol 30 ◽  
pp. e10
Author(s):  
C. Gutiérrez ◽  
C.M. Velho ◽  
L.A. Linhares ◽  
L.F. Pottmaier ◽  
D.P. Lise ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-119
Author(s):  
Tarek Seddik ◽  
Sera Derelioglu

Objectives: Optimal restoration of endodontically treated teeth is very important for the durability of the endodontic treatment. The focus of this study was to evaluate the fracture strength and microleakage of composite endocrowns compared with Class II composite restorations in endodontically treated primary molar teeth. Materials and Methods: 48 extracted second primary molars were divided into 2 groups. Group 1 (control): teeth with Class II and endodontic access cavities restored with G-aenial composite; group 2: endocrown restorations with G-aenial composite. After completing restorative procedures, teeth were subjected to thermal cycling (500 cycles). Compressive loading was applied to half of the samples, although the other half were immersed in 0.5% basic fucsin solution for 24 h, sectioned, and examined for dye penetration under stereomicroscope. Data were subjected to statistical analysis by the Mann-Whitney U test (α = 0.05). Results: The fracture strength of endocrowns (1741 ± 379.35 N) was significantly higher than that of the control group (1126.5 ± 405.39 N) ( P < .05). No statistical difference was found in microleakage between the 2 groups ( P > .05). Conclusion: Endocrown preparation increases the fracture strength of the final composite restoration when used in primary molar teeth. Composite endocrown restorations can be a practical and an esthetic option for restoring endodontically treated primary molar teeth.


Author(s):  
R.A. Bresser ◽  
L. van de Geer ◽  
D. Gerdolle ◽  
U. Schepke ◽  
M.S. Cune ◽  
...  

2006 ◽  
Vol 119 (21) ◽  
pp. 1815-1820 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu-xing ZHANG ◽  
Wei-hong ZHANG ◽  
Zhi-yue LU ◽  
Ke-li WANG

2014 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 234-241 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shirin Shahrbaf ◽  
Richard van Noort ◽  
Behnam Mirzakouchaki ◽  
Elaheh Ghassemieh ◽  
Nicolas Martin

2016 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 115-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neslihan Tekçe ◽  
Kansad Pala ◽  
Safa Tuncer ◽  
Mustafa Demirci ◽  
Merve Efe Serim

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. Process
Author(s):  
Yohanna Campos D’amico ◽  
Ulisses Xavier Da Silva Neto ◽  
Vânia Portela Ditzel Westphalen ◽  
Everdan Carneiro ◽  
Alexandre Kowalczuck

Objective: The present study assessed the fracture strength of teeth subjected to endodontic access cavity preparation on buccal surfaces, or with the aid of operating microscopy when compared to the conventional technique. Material and methods: Sixty mandibular incisors were split into four groups (n=15): conventional access cavity preparation (CCP); conservative (C); buccal surface (BS); and control. The canals were prepared and filled and the cavities were restored. A static compressive strength test was conducted until crown fracture. The force data were compiled and assessed statistically. Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests were performed to assess normality, Levene’s test to assess variance homogeneity, the one-way ANOVA to compare fracture strength in the assessed groups. Tukey’s HSD test was used to determine whether the differences in the means were significant between the groups.Results: The experimental groups did not show any statistically significant differences in mean fracture strength (CCP = 585.65 N±107.64 N)(BS = 530.52 N±129.35 N) (C = 517.83 N±114.68 N). Conclusion: Therefore, the selection of surface or size of access cavity proposed did not influence the fracture strength of mandibular incisors when compared to conventional cavity preparation. KeywordsDental pulp cavity; Dental stress analysis; Root canal therapy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document