Restorative materials compared for fracture resistance

2005 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 155
2015 ◽  
Vol 74 (2) ◽  
pp. 96-102 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bilal Yasa ◽  
Hakan Arslan ◽  
Elif Yasa ◽  
Merve Akcay ◽  
Huseyin Hatirli

1987 ◽  
Vol 115 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fernando de C. Oliveira ◽  
Gerald E. Denehy ◽  
Daniel B. Boyer

2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
RAS Pereira ◽  
AA Bicalho ◽  
SD Franco ◽  
D Tantbirojn ◽  
A Versluis ◽  
...  

SUMMARY Objectives To evaluate the effect of the restorative protocol on cuspal strain, fracture resistance, residual stress, and mechanical properties of restorative materials in endodontically treated molars. Methods Forty-five molars received mesio-occlusal-distal (MOD) Class II preparations and endodontic treatment followed by direct restorations using three restorative protocols: composite resin (CR) only (Filtek Supreme, 3M-ESPE), resin modified glass ionomer cement in combination with CR (Vitremer, 3M-ESPE in pulp chamber and Filtek Supreme in MOD cavity), conventional glass ionomer cement in combination with composite resin (CGI-CR) (Ketac Fil, 3M-ESPE in pulp chamber and Filtek Supreme in MOD cavity). Cuspal strain was measured using strain gauges, and fracture resistance was tested with an occlusal load. Elastic modulus (EM) and Vickers hardness (VH) of the restorative materials were determined at different depths using dynamic microhardness indentation. Curing shrinkage was measured using the strain gauge technique. The restorative protocols were also simulated in finite element analysis (FEA). The shrinkage strain, cuspal strain, EM, VH, and fracture resistance data were statistically analyzed using split-plot analysis of variance and Tukey test (p=0.05). Residual shrinkage stresses were expressed in modified von Mises equivalent stresses. Results Shrinkage strain values (in volume %) were Ketac Fil (0.08±0.01) < Vitremer (0.18±0.01) < Filtek Supreme (0.54±0.03). Cuspal strain was higher and fracture resistance was lower when using CR only compared with the techniques that used glass ionomer. The EM and VH of the materials in the pulp chamber were significantly lower for glass ionomer. The FEA showed that using CR only resulted in higher residual stresses in enamel and root dentin close to the pulp chamber than the combinations with glass ionomers (RMGI-CR and CGI-CR). Conclusions The choice of restorative protocol significantly affected the biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated molars. Using glass ionomer to fill the pulp chamber is recommended when endodontically treated molars receive direct composite restorations because it reduces cuspal strain and increases fracture resistance.


10.2341/07-90 ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 305-311 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Ferrier ◽  
B. S. Sekhon ◽  
P. A. Brunton

Clinical Relevance The fracture resistance of resin-modified glass ionomer cements merits consideration of their use as core materials for root-filled premolars.


2014 ◽  
Vol 30 (5) ◽  
pp. e99-e111 ◽  
Author(s):  
G.D. Quinn ◽  
A.A. Giuseppetti ◽  
K.H. Hoffman

2006 ◽  
Vol 96 (5) ◽  
pp. 339-344 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lazaro Augusto de Almeida Goncalves ◽  
Luiz Pascoal Vansan ◽  
Silvana Maria Paulino ◽  
Manoel Damiao Sousa Neto

1999 ◽  
Vol 82 (2) ◽  
pp. 167-171 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul A. Brunton ◽  
Paul Cattell ◽  
F.J.Trevor Burke ◽  
Nairn H.F. Wilson ◽  
Paul A. Brunton ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
pp. e53 ◽  
Author(s):  
G.D. Quinn ◽  
A.A. Giuseppetti ◽  
K.H. Hoffman ◽  
J.B. Quinn

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (21) ◽  
pp. 7616
Author(s):  
Jesús Mena-Álvarez ◽  
Rubén Agustín-Panadero ◽  
Alvaro Zubizarreta-Macho

(1) Background: To analyze the fracture resistance of endodontically upper premolar teeth restored with glass fiber reinforced posts, glass fiber elastic posts, conventional composite resin (CR) and glass fiber reinforced composite (FRC) resins as restorations. (2) Methods: Seventy premolars were submitted to root canal treatment and restored with the following restorative materials (n = 10): A. FRC posts restored with resin; B. Elastic FRC posts restored with resin; C. FRC posts restored with FRC resin; D. Elastic FRC posts restored with FRC resin; E. Direct restoration with resin; F. Direct restoration with FRC resin; G. Untreated teeth. The teeth were embedded in an epoxy resin model, thermal cycling fatigued in distilled water and mechanical cycling fatigued inducing 80 N load. Loading was applied axially on the center of the occlusal surface with a vertical displacement. The fracture was produced by a universal machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/s with a 5000 N load cell. The results were analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey’s test and Weibull characteristic strength and modulus were calculated. (3) Results: The group that obtained the greatest fracture resistance was D (3620 ± 470 N) and the least resistant was group A (2420 ± 1010 N). Statistically significant differences were observed between the groups restored with Elastic FRC posts-CR versus FRC post-CR and only CR (p = 0.043 and p = 0.008). (4) Conclusions: The glass fiber reinforced restorative materials increase the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document